Breeding Questions & Suggestions

[Cajmera]

= Breeding Questions & Suggestions Board =

If your question/suggestion concerns CUSTOMS or is GENERAL, follow the appropriate link to their dedicated threads.

Short first post, but pretty simple thread. Basically, what this is is a feedback and suggestion thread specifically relating to Soquili breedings. If there's something that you want to suggest be changed, added, or considered, then feel free to post it here. Please remember that this is literally just that, a suggestion board, so the more detailed the suggestion, the more likely it will be to potentially be used.

This board is for, but not limited to:
• General questions related to Soquili Breeding
• Confusion or concerns about existing breeding rules
• Suggestions for new breeding rules
• Suggestions for old breeding rules that are outdated and should be considered for updating or removal

Things that do *not* belong on this board:
• Drama. This is not a personal complaints thread - please contact the Soquili mule or one of the managers
• Comments without any reasoning. "Male Soquili should be able to breed again right away." Is a comment. "I think we should be able to breed male Soquili immeadiately after having foals because the stallions don't actually have to carry the foals or suffer any physical strain and therefore could theoretically breed again immeadiately" provides the suggestion and the reason suggested, which might not otherwise be known. Provide your reasoning!

Too shy to post in public? You can PM the Soquili mule, or kaliskanny and Felmino directly if you have private concerns.  

[Kamiki]

I think how edits are passed down to babies should be changed. I don't think its fair that a heavily edited parent has less than a 50% of passing anything down to its baby.

My suggestion:

The colorist doing the breeding "rates" each parent on a scale of 0-5.

0 = no edits
1 = very minor edits
2 = small edits/edited mane and tail
3 = moderate edits
4 = heavy edits/full clothing/etc
5 = very heavy edits/mutant/etc

Obviously there would be wiggle room, it would be up to the colorists opinion.

But anyway, you take the average of both parents and apply that to the babies.

For example,

Non edited mare (0) breeds with a super-edited stallion (5), all babies would get at least something unique passed to them from their parents (2.5, somewhere between minor and moderate edits). Not as edited as the super edited stallion, but something.

Because it makes little sense to me that the babies would get "all or nothing." In theory, it shouldn't create more work for the colorists, because doing moderate edits on three babies should be about the equivalent to doing two heavy edit babies and a non-edit baby (if the rolls went that way)

Also, it would make things easier/more fair when giving baskets away. It would avoid disappointment of getting a non-edited baby if that was something you were really going for.


Just my two cents <3  

[EchoLimaFoxtrot]

One thing that has kinda been nagging on my mind was looking at the history of the parents. I know it's difficult to hunt down ALL the parents, that's kind of insane.... but could also try and look into at least a little on what breeds the parents/ancestors were in the past.

I know it's been done before, but really haven't seen it more recently and don't know if it is taken into consideration in the current "rolling" system taking place. Of course, I could be just talking to myself and this is actually BEING done.

But what I mean is looking past JUST the parents for breed traits. For example, I know Icarus has kelpi-uni, alicorn, unicorn, and fluttercorn, in his "blood" (geez, boy, I almost want to put 'regular'...he's got everything else >.< ), some of those are pretty reoccuring themes, too. But I think that the past generations should at least be considered in the "rolls", even though I know they are supposed to be 'rarer', etc.

I remember this being done in the past, as mentioned. Would kind of be interested in seeing it 'revived', per say.

((*coughs* Also, this would apply to 'regular' as well))

If there is a time issue, I do volunteer my own to help the colorists hunt down past generations, etc. I really do feel that this should at least be addressed considering how big the generation numbers are getting.  

[Sabin Duvert]

Obviously the individual slots that are offered are up to the colorists, but I think that it would be neat it at least one of the colorists from time to time did a lowest luck slot. This would be the person who has been trying the absolute longest with no luck for a pair that had never successfully bred. Either the number of months, the number of raffle attempts, or both.

Because that way, in theory, eventually you'll get a slot if you keep trying long enough.  

[Meeki]

Breeding Rights Suggestion:

I really think the breeding rights should be more strict in regards to what rights a person does or does not have.

For example, say Lily entered a horse named Joe Bob that was co-owned between Lily and Miranda. Miranda does not have breeding rights that time so it does not count against her couple limit. If Lily wins, she should not be allowed to gift a basket to Miranda or co-own it with her in any way, even in the event of a third basket.

I think no rights for that breeding should absolutely mean no rights at all. I think this opens up doors to abuse since one that wins could 'gift' or 'co-own' a basket with the other owner. This would allow people to have multiple pairs in the raffle with only two official and then secretly co-own any others if they win. So I think it would be good to n** that in the butt as soon as possible.

If someone absolutely wants to gift or co-own a basket with the other co-owner even though that person did not have rights during that breeding, I think it should count against both owners limit for that month.  

[mouselet]

I'd like to second ELF's suggestion of, well, ancestral traits. Recessive genes occur in real life, and it makes the chances of what a basket will end up being much more interesting.

As far as difficulty for the colorists when actually doing the breedings, that problem could by solved simply by having entries include the parents of a generation Soquili when one is entered in a raffle. It could be optional, if it was really such a problem.

Example:
Mother, owners, [link to mother's mother] & [link to mother's father], image

I know it's more for the owners to keep track of, but I for one think it would be worth the extra effort.  

[Kamiki]

mouselet

I know it's more for the owners to keep track of, but I for one think it would be worth the extra effort.

An added footnote, maybe if the owners DON'T provide the breeder's the links, then it simply wouldn't be considered? Therefore people who don't think its worth the extra effort wouldn't have to bother.

*throws in her $.02*  

[Roniel REVOLUTION]

Could the usage of stats on basket number be clarified? ^^ There was some real confusion about the thread a while ago and I'd like an official say.  

[Silent Spy]

I second Meeki's idea.


Also, I will throw in my own concern about a current rule:
- PersonA and PersonB have a pair in a raffle together. PersonA enters and wins.
- PersonA may no longer enter in any more raffles, but may still be entered.
- PersonB, however, can enter or be entered.

I find this situation unfair to PersonA. I don't see why who entered the winning pair matters so much. I think it would be more fair if PersonA could enter or be entered, just like PersonB.
PersonA and PersonB both won the raffle, why would one have more restrictions set than the other? They both won.  

[EchoLimaFoxtrot]

Silent Spy

Also, I will throw in my own concern about a current rule:
- PersonA and PersonB have a pair in a raffle together. PersonA enters and wins.
- PersonA may no longer enter in any more raffles, but may still be entered.
- PersonB, however, can enter or be entered.

I find this situation unfair to PersonA. I don't see why who entered the winning pair matters so much. I think it would be more fair if PersonA could enter or be entered, just like PersonB.
PersonA and PersonB both won the raffle, why would one have more restrictions set than the other? They both won.

I believe I know why this is the case. If you might recall pre-June 07 (or was June the last month?) all the breedings were at the same time - and you could only enter one pair yourself. So, when the colorists were allowed to have their own breeding raffles, this rule still applied.

If PersonA were to enter another pair in another raffle that same month after entering a pair that won, it is the equivalent of them entering 2 pairs "in the same raffle".

And on that, note, someone could then potentially enter two pairs themselves in which they are the sole owner - and now they had actually entered 4 soquili. I don't know if that actually matters but just another thing that would have to be taken into consideration.

((I did edit... the two errors made me want to cry ^^; It's getting late.... XD ))  

[Sabin Duvert]

Going off of what Meeki was saying - I was thinking about it and was thinking this:

The biggest breakdown I see with that rule is that what is the difference between a friend who you co-own a soquili with using their breeding right to the soquili and gifting you with a basket and that friend gifting you with a basket from a soquili who you don't co-own.

In other words, if it's how Meeki's suggesting, then literally the only restriction on who you could give a basket to would be it can't be the other co-owner, which is a little weird.

Maybe, and this is a little more restrictive, but might be more streamlined in the long run if there are going to be restrictions at all (and I don't think that there needs to be, really) - is say that no one can receive more than two baskets a month from a breeding raffle - whether or not one of their soquili was a parent. This wouldn't count bribe breedings or Sirenz' RL breedings where you can get more than two slots at a time, but would count RP contests for a basket from a breeding raffle, etc.

That way, if a co-owner who wins a raffle decides to gift you with a basket from a successful breeding, and you've already won a different raffle that month, if you decide to still enter your second pair that month in another raffle and happen be lucky enough to win, you couldn't keep a basket because you've already got 2 that month.

So it would be more of an after the fact "counting" towards your breeding limit, than necessarily your entry limit.

Optionally, this might be able to negate the whole 'only involved in two pairs' at a time rule, and just make it so each person can only post one entry form themselves, and only keep two baskets total that month. *shrugs* Just tossing out some ideas.  

[Twitchapher]

I strongly agree with Sabin's idea of a lowest luck raffle. It's so fusterating when your trying for months to get foal and you have nothing to show for it..

I'd also suggest more low luck slots as I've been noticing that when they do show up, there are more that 20 couples on the list...Let's do some math. If all six colourist were to have a raffle for the three to four months needed to get onto the low luck list, that 18-24 tries for these couples that haven't had any luck.  

[Kamiki]

Personally, I don't think the shop should restrict what you do with your own baskets. I think if you want to gift your co-owner with a basket you got, you should have the right to do so. Maybe you want it to be a surprise?

I know sometimes people have given me a Soquili but they wanted to co-own it. I think I should have the right to give them a basket, even if it was "my breeding."

I also don't like the idea of being limited on how many baskets you're "allowed" to get a month.

I don't see restricting who can and/or how many baskets you can get in a month would do anything but be frustrating and very very complicated. I am 100% in support of limiting couples you can have in a raffle/month, but after that just let people do what they want with their babies. Getting breedings is hard and I don't think anyone gives away their babies lightly.

*tosses her last couple of cents in an heads to bed heart  

[TheMadHatter]

I agree completely with Meeki on the issue of baskets going to co-owners.

According to the rules you are only allowed to enter a breeding pair with a co-owner, in the event the co-owner already has two pairs entered, under the stipulation that it -does not count for them-. This should mean that they -do not- get -any- benefits from the breeding. Gifts or not. This leaves things open for huge amounts of abuse of people being able to enter upwards of 4 pairs depending on their co-owing agreements. If the breeding does not count toward your pair then you do not get baskets from it, that is why it was allowed to be entered in the first place.

I do not think people should be restricted to two baskets a month period. That is completely unfair to people who want to gift their friends with baskets when the friends aren't owners of parents.

I also agree with Silent about it being pointless on who is allowed to enter raffles after they've won one. The raffles are no longer held all together so a rule that was made because of that is no longer needed. The breeding counts toward two owners, it makes no sense to hold it against one of them just because they happened to be the one who posted it.  

[Talaye]

Kamiki, I think that thee issue with that is people like you and Sabin who co-own almost everything which, essentially, gives you 4 pairs in any given raffle if you break it down to the basics. Yes, you can teehee and say "Oh, Sabin has rights to those two and I have rights to the others..." but when you're getting a basket out of it either way it's not fair to the people who don't go about things that way.