Open Answer to Durzo's questions on Sim Inflation (friendly, wall of text)

[Gwen Morse]

I'm still not sure why pulling money out matters in this game. The high bankrolls just keep replenishing and it's not like the costs of shipping or boarding or breeding increase as a result of "simflation". What does it matter if the top 5 earners have $1B in sim$ or $2B? Maybe it impacts the exchange, but these players are usually purchasers of the exchange and the people like me who cannot purchase on the exchange put real money in?

First the semi-rhetorical question of 'why' money needs to be removed from the economy in general (and then several questions that flow from it): Because, in a game like the sim, inflation is objectively 'bad'. The game is not the 'real world' and the economic forces that make inflation useful (in some cases) in real economies don't exist here.

Why do I say that inflation is objectively bad? Because it makes the game 'harder' for any player that isn't already wealthy than it was at the point that any specific earlier player amassed their wealth. This is particularly bad for "new" players. This isn't limited to Novice players. I started in the sim 3 years ago and I'm still considered a new player. I can already see significant inflation in prices from when I started (prices on equivalent broodmares doubling and some average stud fee increases).

(Looking at Novice stats) most Novice players aren't getting any more money out of Trial Park than when I was there and so when they get to Junior Park and broodmare costs have doubled then they can only afford to buy half as many mares to establish their broodmare barns (as I could have), and where average stud fees have increased as well then it becomes harder for them to use stallions that will improve the 'meh' mares available at their budget. You can extrapolate this back to before Trial Park existed or for new players who didn't race at Trial Park. It becomes less likely that 'newer' people will get enough 'money earning' young horses to carry their stable until they can breed up better quality mares and really learn to play the game. This (game) financial instability may not hit them right away. Maybe they can eke out a few seasons. But eventually, if lightning doesn't strike and they don't get an amazing Graded stakes contender, the tiny fees successful players don't notice will overwhelm them and they'll give up and become another name in the dispersal auctions.

What does the difficulty from inflation matter when the sim has a lot of features that make it 'easier' than when specific wealthy players amassed their wealth? Because (a) most of these features have to be paid for (either in sim $ or Game Points) so they're not feasible for struggling new players, (b) they're available to everyone so it doesn't counterbalance the advantage of wealthy players having nigh unlimited sim $ (c) some of them 'harm' new players (such as First Class shipping that killed 'regional' small stakes racing or spending GP for equipment checks where debuting horses with correct equipment have a significant advantage).

Why do we 'care' about new players from a game design perspective (as opposed to basic empathy because we're all human beings)? Because, over time, the game loses long term players: either because they get burned out, or they don't like significant changes to the game, or their lives become too busy, or through sadder reasons like natural causes. If we don't get new players to replace them, at some point it won't have enough players to feel competitive, and this can spiral out of control quickly and kill the game.

For your second question, which seems to be along the lines of "why bother removing some but not all excess sim $ when it already looks broken beyond repair"? My apologies if I misinterpreted this question, as I know a lot of other people did as well. The answer to that is that it's not as bad as it could be - in other words - it could actually be *worse*. And if it got a lot worse, it would also spiral out of control quickly and kill the game.

[Kelly Haggerty]

What do I mean when I say "you cannot consume your way out of wealth inequality?"

To answer this hanging question, once you get so much money (in RL or the SIM) it just becomes impossible to buy enough things to have a "trickle down" effect on the economy. Imagine in the SIM you have 2 players, one has 200m SIM$ and the other 10b SIM$. There is a huge difference in their wealth, but there just isn't enough for the richer guy to go spend money on that would close the gap. Let alone closing the gap between that player and the average player with much less, or (heaven forbid) the new player with $200k.

This exacerbates what Gwen is talking about above. Also, we care less about money when we have more of it, and that creates another problem, which is what I call the "missing left tail" of the distribution of horses. So we get the situation we have now, where even at TP it is difficult to win without at least a really nice allowance horse, and more and more "freaks" are actually mid-tier. To put it another way, if everyone retires horses that are productive and below, then the worst horse in the game will be an allowance galloper. This is another type of Simflation that hits the newest players particularly hard.

[Sy Razi]

Also, we care less about money when we have more of it, and that creates another problem, which is what I call the "missing left tail" of the distribution of horses. So we get the situation we have now, where even at TP it is difficult to win without at least a really nice allowance horse, and more and more "freaks" are actually mid-tier. To put it another way, if everyone retires horses that are productive and below, then the worst horse in the game will be an allowance galloper. This is another type of Simflation that hits the newest players particularly hard.

A very important point.

[Anthony Zappulla]

For some kind of entertainment in real life you spend alittle money

If you want entertainment, spending 50 to 100 bucks a real year could offer some entertainment. And also giving you a chance to breed something special or buy something special

[Elkippos Larysios]

Hello! Apologies for the wall of text that is bound to follow, and for bumping this thread. I wanted to share my new player experience in the specific topic and a suggestion.

I came across the other thread and found the topic and comments very interesting. Continuing into this one, I learned a lot about the notorious “Simflation” and the need (and methods) to siphon $IM out of it. Now, as a new player, I can't say I have any strong opinions in the topic, or that I am affected significantly in the SIM. But I did notice some less than ideal elements in my brief time here, that may be the results of it. For example:

The first few days after joining, the thing that struck me was that the vast majority of the horses I acquired were allowance gallop. 2–3 weeks later, I had so many of them (and even some stakes) that I found no reason to keep the lesser minority of claimers, solids and productives. Especially since I have no knowledge of pedigrees and no clue if any of them will improve significantly in the future. So I got rid of them and still doing so. I don't know if the veterans and more experienced players agree, but to me, it seems like Allowance is bottom of the barrel at this time, even struggling to get placement in Trial Park claimer races, because the quality and quantity of horses has skyrocketed over the years. This looks to be the result of players having so much money they can practically keep breeding the top and most decorated horses over and over again, churning out more and more spectacular horses over time.

Another thing I noticed was some astronomical amounts spent on horses when looking at their history tab. Absolutely bonkers price tags that the poor horses have no chance of earning back even if they exceed expectations (in my speculation). Some of them look like they were bought just for the prestige of owning them. Some unraced and unused 5-6 year olds, others sold for massive discount or gifted for free. And why not, if you have tons of $IM and a huge steady income, why not, I ask. There is such a disparity on the Sales page and auctions, half the horses are put up and sold for a bag of chips, and the other half for millions of $IM with some in-between who look like “not good enough” broodmares, stallions and lowly stakes racehorses who win purse money once every blue moon. There are other notable things I saw that may contribute to the problem, but I'm not confident mentioning them due to my inexperience.

So what is my suggestion? A soft cap on earnings, which if you pass it, you pay a tax on further earnings. (Indeed, something like the luxury tax in some sports). Now, the cap could rise or drop each new season depending on the state and economy of the game, and the details of the tax is something to be figured out. The cap amount itself, the percentage of the tax or where the tax would apply specifically (All earnings? Only purse earnings? Breeding fees? Sales? Et cetera).

New players, small barns and mixer-only barns will be unaffected by this “tax”, as they don't earn that kind of money (except maybe extremely successful barns who won't care about the tax anyway). And with proper implementation, it could only serve to pull out large amounts of $im each season without reducing purses (remaining lucrative and satisfying). Could even reduce the huge amount of horses being bred each year due to those who breed the most, having less money and more risk in keeping ginormous barns with unproductive foals and yearlings.

Realistically, the community may feel no change is needed. It may be immoral and unfair to the already established players, who worked hard and put so much time, effort, and contributions into the SIM. It may be impossible to implement or even plain dumb I just wanted to share this idea, and see what others think. Any critique and feedback is welcome.

[Jon Xett]

"Realistically, the community may feel no change is needed. It may be immoral and unfair to the already established players, who worked hard and put so much time, effort, and contributions into the SIM. It may be impossible to implement or even a plain dumb I just wanted to share this idea, and see what others think. Any critique and feedback is welcome."

Thank you for your perspective on this sensitive topic. You put a lot of time and thought in to your response.

I had immoral thought as I read your post. Since SIMHorseRacing has a lot of variables and random events, what if there was a "Lightning Strike" SIM event that randomly affected owners with $IM banks with greater than $19,000,000? Two events per year. Owners are immune for the next SIM year.

Example 1: "Your outfit successfully won their legal challenge however it cost the owner 14% of their current funds in legal fees"
Example 2 "Rapid Gray Racing was hit with a widespread catastrophic feed contaminate event. It cost the owner 8% of their current funds in vet bills.:
Example 3: "Flooding at the broodmare farm you use caused significant damages. All mares were saved but the bill for emergency services, veterinary, and rebuilding cost you 22% of your current funds."

No one here likely feels that this is a serious request that would solve a controversial and complex issue, whether real or perceived -so- no need to respond if it is upsetting. jX

[Elkippos Larysios]

Thank you for your perspective on this sensitive topic. You put a lot of time and thought in to your response.

And I thank you, Jon, for being willing to reply and give feedback and your own view to a newbie. I did not expect such a swift reply, especially from a seasoned and great member like you. The reason I wrote all of that was to share some observations and experiences as a new player, while being completely new and ignorant in horse racing.

The reason for my post and why I believe it's a problem: A few days ago, as I was going through my barns and noting what to keep or sell, I had this brief moment of sadness. It was because I came to realize I would never experience that moment where everyone is relatively new with non-existent funds, fighting with every and any horse dealt to them or could get their hands on (good or bad). I came too late. It's not such a big deal by itself, I mean who cares, I love the SIM as it is already. But my perceived issues from this Inflation is why I had this thought in the first place:

I have no incentive or benefit to run anything bellow Allowance since I had such a huge amount of them within days of joining. New Player sales has thousands and thousands of horses for $1-$5 each, bred and discarded by the truckloads. They are so cheap and uninspiring, just a list of endless names.
There is no scenario currently where, I buy that one claimer or solid with a great name and go: “Hey little dude! No one is giving you a chance, but I will” because he would be one of only a few horses in my barn, would have cost a good amount, and so, have being meaningful to me.

I tried to come up with a suggestion that wouldn't immediately hurt already earned money. One that could only prevent to keep accumulating ginormous amounts in the future, into figures that you cannot possibly ever spend and use. I loved your suggestions, as they are a realistic (There are always unexpected events and losses IRL businesses!) and consistent way to address the issue (Again, if it's the consensus, it is even an issue to begin with).

I really appreciate your reply, Jon, have a great day!

[Tammy Fox]

I may be wrong in recalling this but I was thinking on the old sim, we had incidents happened with our barns that pulled money from our accounts, like a barn fire and other disasters. Any old time simmer recall that happening way back when?

[Danny Derby]

I've always thought that there should be a limit to how many times a played can use a stud in a given year, and think this could also have a positive impact on inflation. Lots of benefits including:

It creates more diverse breeding in the game.
It gets players to spend their breeding budget on a wider variety of stallions.
Players using a wider selection of stallions spreads the wealth more than a few super stallions in a division getting mass bred.
Keeps stallion spots available for more players.
Likely means less horses are bred, less horses means less races, less races means less money coming in to the game.

[Anthony Zappulla]

Then said stud would be 400k per

[Tim Matthews]

Then said stud would be 400k per

Probably not

[LA Pepper]

or then said stud would be private

[Jon Xett]

I've always thought that there should be a limit to how many times a played can use a stud in a given year, and think this could also have a positive impact on inflation. Lots of benefits including:

It creates more diverse breeding in the game.
It gets players to spend their breeding budget on a wider variety of stallions.
Players using a wider selection of stallions spreads the wealth more than a few super stallions in a division getting mass bred.
Keeps stallion spots available for more players.
Likely means less horses are bred, less horses means less races, less races means less money coming in to the game.

=======================

My Two Small Things request for this forum topic is:
(Note: copy/paste from 5 months ago.)

My request is for an option for a stallion owner to be able to opt-in to a set maximum limit of breedings allowed to a stallion by all other players.

On the Horse Owner page in the Stud Fee & Options section for example: the default stallion settings would be 120 slots.
My opt in request for Maximum Limit Per Player could be set to Unlimited and changed at any time by the owner to 5, 10 or 20 and would apply across the board to every SIM player other than the owner.

You would still be able to set your personal Reserve Bookings number as is currently available.
The stallion owner will ‘still be able’ to sell Reserve Bookings for Specific Players ‘but the opt in max breedings would apply’.

ETA: all this would of course be subject to the Approval of The Steward and The Admin buy in due to coding complexity. And these are again just a suggestion. jX

ETA 2: currently, an owner can “save” 115 of the 120 slots, for example, and ineffectively attempt to control the mass breeding flow. It’s not effective because every time the owner opens more slots, the same savvy players can pounce and breed more mares.

ETA 3: The number of stallions that are truly attractive to mass breed is not a very significantly high number but I can appreciate the advantages of trying to limit mass breeding AND I can appreciate that owners of these super sires want to keep things simple by using a high stud fee as the rate limiting factor. Neither Danny’s or my suggestion would actually guarantee to have a positive impact on SIM inflation or SIM parity.

[J.P Dogood]

This may be unpopular but it could work. Remember a few seasons ago when the steward ran mare auctions for RL stallions who had pensioned and never did much? I remember her referencing that this crop of mares was better than what those stallions originally produced in game. If a group of mares could get upgraded, it’s possible for her to downgrade stallions.

I don’t know the best way to start this but in theory she could make it harder to be a super stallion. This year alone has seen the pensioning of Delirium, That Voodoo Youdo, Clark Kent, Torque, and names like Avacas, Parts Unknown and more to pension soon. Sure these are no DMB but all very successful stallions ALL in one year. If stallions were weakened so to speak, it would likely drive prices of stud fees down while also encouraging people to try other stallions outside of the top 5 or 10 in a given division

[Tim Matthews]

or then said stud would be private

Would every stud be private? I’m sure it would be fine