Here you can chat about life, roleplay, or whatever you like. Please be polite and kind to each other at all times.
Consider joining our Discord Server to chat with other members and receive announcements live. You can also use the @ command there to ping mods and other members.
Here are some words Posted on July 5, 2024 at 02:20:52 PM by Sable
Twins Dibs
1) What are your general thoughts on this topic? Do you feel as though the current system is fair and balanced?
Yes. I don’t think it’s extremely unfair but it definitely does feel unbalanced.
2) Do you feel as though it would be fair to limit the number of twins dibs to one per season? This would leave the second pair of twins to be rolled naturally.
Yes. I think that this would be more fair than the current system.
3) Do you feel that it would be beneficial to raise the maximum number of twins per season to three? If we did so, the third twin would not be given out until the season mid-point and would be naturally rolled only. If so, how would you balance the rarity?
No. I don’t think raising the max number of twins to three would be beneficial. I think that twins are very neat, and it makes sense that they are sought after, but ultimately they are a perk and not an essential element to the game so not having twins, or having to wait a little longer to get twins, isn’t really going to impact anyone’s success in the game. I think it is fair to keep them quite rare but enforce a balance between using a contest perk and having a chance to get them without a perk.
3a) Include the possibility of death for the mare and/or foals? This would require players to intentionally opt-in when requesting foal stats.
No. I like this idea in theory because it makes the stakes a bit higher and would maybe incentivize people to play the game more seriously, but it seems a bit out of place since there isn’t really a precedent for a death roll of any kind. The game is overall very flexible and relaxed, so it seems a bit disproportionate to add in this one instance of a death roll. I think if this were a system implemented into other elements of the game (battles, for example) then it would make more sense. However, this kind of system doesn’t seem quite right for the overall attitude of the game and players currently.
3b) We considered basing the third as being dependent on the total number of breedings per season. However, the fear is that this would inadvertently encourage players to breed foals they don't intend to keep or play.
No. I think this would incentivize spam foals, unfortunately.
4) Do you have any other thoughts or suggestions not covered by the above points?
Maybe introduce one random bonus twin roll per IRL year in addition to only allowing one twin perk per season? Or whatever timespan. Just one surprise extra set of foals every so many breeding seasons, completely random, haha.
Away Protection
1) Do you think the way away protection currently works is fair? Are there any changes you would like to see?
No. I think it’s kind of an honor system right now and while I think it is fair for isolated instances of hiatus, I do think it can be and has been abused. I have seen a few territories go completely inactive while technically still being claimed for very long periods of time. I would like to see active territories. I’m certainly guilty of going on away at the last second of my 14 days because I totally forgot to post lol but I try not to do that and I do try to keep active territories and set them up to continue being active without me if I do have to go on away. It’s some effort but keeping territories should be more work than not keeping territories.
2) Which (if any) of the above solutions seem the most fair to you? Or do you have your own idea?
I like the first suggestion the most, kind of like PTO at work.
(idea) I think maybe the protections could be limited partially; for example, if you go on away, you get one month where your territory owners are ineligible to receive challenges, but you still have to post IC within the usual timeframe to keep from losing it. Or maybe the other way around, where you don’t have to post IC for a month, but your protection from battle challenges expires after a certain point so that chronically inactive territories might have a chance to be fought for and won by a player with more time/energy to maintain them. It’s a very loose idea and as I’ve described it, it doesn’t sound super fair, but might be worth thinking about and refining if anyone thinks it has potential to become beneficial and fair with some work.
(idea) I also think it could be addressed on a case-by-case basis; for example, if there is a player who is habitually away and takes full advantage of the territory protections back-to-back, it could be brought up to that player in the form of a warning or a check-in or something. I understand that that is super subjective though and it would be a lot easier to have a structured rule implemented.
Ultimately, I think the first suggestion is the simplest and most fair, these are just ideas.