Asking, pleading for kittys to gain love from day one.

[Sara Franco]

(11-28-2012 08:47 AM)devilness chant Wrote:  if you pee on it...it will go out.

LOL

[dakillakm Resident]

(11-28-2012 03:53 AM)Tad Carlucci Wrote:  Take one pair. Permanently mate them at birth. Using the current breeding rules, you have a 5:2 chance for the pair to produce a replacement breeding pair. That assumes perfect production without aids of any kind, and birthing the cats at the same time; and does not care if any traits improve. The odds of getting a pair which improve on one or more trait in the parents in that period are 3:4.

Shortening the age-in period to 0 would improve the odds of improving upon the parents to 1:1.

On average, this should result in an across-the-board price drop of 25% for all cats.

You'll note that I made every effort to tie my hands behind my back So, the price drops would likely be far more.

ok now forgive me because /me is a history major
but this seems a little theoretical. You can't possibly know the odds of any two cats improving upon each other when they birth boxes, right? Each pairing has better or worse chances depending on their shown and hidden traits. Plus, it seems astounding (though maybe accurate?) that ONE extra kitten could effect the odds so drastically! 1/15th extra could decrease the value of the entire market by more than 25%?


and just for funsies...
   

[Tad Carlucci]

The odds are fixed at 50/50. The odds DO NOT change based upon the traits present in the cat.

It's not the "one extra kitty" which drops the value. It's the fact that, if everyone used the worst-possible breeding style there is, 25% more players will achieve the goal of improving each generation. It's that, using this worst-possible case, instead of, on average, only 3 out of 4 players would meet the goal of "improving" the parents, everyone would. At least, on average. There will always be some who hit a bad string and get only males, or never get a recessive. But, over time, the effect is negligible.

[Devilness Chant]

I think it could help the market a bit since we would have that little extra time to breed nicer kitties for sale instead of just throwing out that one trait wonder every week. (which yes I have done) But it's not like it would have to be a mad dash to make a buck.
It would be nice to have the extra time to work the better traited lines that involve opening more boxes and waiting two weeks. How many times have we all heard or said that our kitties that we worked so hard on to trait out are worthless after the months it took to do it.
It's not just opening one box. It's opening a number of boxes which adds up to weeks and months to make those nicer kitties.

[Kayleigh McMillan]

(11-28-2012 09:54 AM)devilness chant Wrote:  I think it could help the market a bit since we would have that little extra time to breed nicer kitties for sale instead of just throwing out that one trait wonder every week. (which yes I have done) But it's not like it would have to be a mad dash to make a buck.
It would be nice to have the extra time to work the better traited lines that involve opening more boxes and waiting two weeks. How many times have we all heard or said that our kitties that we worked so hard on to trait out are worthless after the months it took to do it.
It's not just opening one box. It's opening a number of boxes which adds up to weeks and months to make those nicer kitties.

This in fact is a good point, i think.
We should get the opportunity in any given way to work on new traits.

[dakillakm Resident]

(11-28-2012 09:44 AM)Tad Carlucci Wrote:  The odds are fixed at 50/50. The odds DO NOT change based upon the traits present in the cat.

It's not the "one extra kitty" which drops the value. It's the fact that, if everyone used the worst-possible breeding style there is, 25% more players will achieve the goal of improving each generation. It's that, using this worst-possible case, instead of, on average, only 3 out of 4 players would meet the goal of "improving" the parents, everyone would. At least, on average. There will always be some who hit a bad string and get only males, or never get a recessive. But, over time, the effect is negligible.

OK, I think I understand how the odds are increased for "improving" upon the parents. How does this, in turn, translate to a 25% price drop on cats in the market is my sticking point? Just because I've improved upon a parent by one trait does not necessarily mean that a) I'm going to put that box for sale or b) that that box is more or less valuable than the parent. It seems to me that these factors are based on what traits are improved upon, how much more recessive/new/desirable are the improvements, etc.

I agree with Dev's point and, much less articulately, tried to make a similar point earlier. Not waiting an extra seven days could mean the ability to create cats with new traits combined with other traits instead of just immediately trying to sell a one new traited box immediately upon arrival because you know the price will plummet. I guess, either way, there are still going to be people selling the first boxes with new traits right out of the gate...

[Kayleigh McMillan]

* Kayleigh pulls her claws back in and tries to be sweet again mind you that is very hard for me as I'm always such a troll
I think we should start a topic on how KC can help us to have more time to breed out new traits with all the Fancieness we want before we get a run on new traits again too early.
I see a problem here indeed especially if we invest in new furs and such.
I barely dare to mention it but,...
* whispers: I do not think breeding at 7 days is the very best way to go ...

[Ethereal Hurricane]

(11-28-2012 08:19 AM)anna acanthus Wrote:  Knock it off Ethereal, you're pretty transparent to quite a few people here.
Snide provocative comments which provoke heated reactions which permit to then present oneself as victim etc ; pretty basic manipulation tactics.

Thats all. Enjoy.

Look, I get that your bandwagon group of friends don't like me and it's pretty obvious that you're all buddies, tossing thanks on each others posts all day long to get that thank count upped.

As for being a victim, no, why would I consider myself a victim, you guys don't bother me in the slightest. I feel sad for the people you DO bully into feeling like they shouldn't post on these forums, which is what I was actually saying, had you bothered to read. You guys get offended when I post, and derail the threads yourselves, then blame me for it. I think that's pretty funny, honestly.

I really could care less about that though, as seen. It doesn't matter to me if you guys get offended every time I post, because I could care less about you in general. Your clique is very rude and super opinionated, without accepting anyone else's opinion unless they share yours. I do, however, find it pretty amusing that your group seems to think I'd waste my time actively seeking you out to be malicious. It's clear by all of your responses, whenever I post. I think its sad, though, that others can read one of my posts and gleam a completely different message from it than all of you.

Furthermore, if what you say is true, and I am just being provocative, just to provoke heated reactions, isn't what you're posting right now feeding that very idea? I think you should probably think a little bit before posting a statement like that, as you're doing exactly what you've accused me of doing. (What they term as, feeding the troll)

You did get one thing right though, I am pretty transparent, almost Ethereal even.

Pseudo intellectuals make me laugh.



____________

Anyway, back to the thread, I agree with you devilness, surprisingly, but the problem is, there ARE people who are just out to make a buck, and IMO, this type of thing would help that along, as seen by some responses in this thread, about how cats are valued, and traits dropping in price.

Making a change just so people can make more money, would be wrong, and that's how I've read it out to be. Saga mentioned that traits become less valuable, and you lose your return on them before you can get them worked in. Not to be contradict myself, but isn't that line of thinking purely from an economic standpoint? You're saying this change should happen so people don't lose their money on an investment? I said this change shouldn't be made because it would change the economy. That isn't a good reason to make a change.

[Callie Cline]

hi all,

i am going to ask that these posts stay on topic. if you have an issue with a person, please follow our guidelines and write them privately.

it's perfectly fine to express your ideas and when it gets personal, we ask you handle it by going directly to the person.

it's very easy to misjudge tone in text, and even in RL speaking for that matter... we all carry our own issues with us and filters which we see things thru.

let's keep on the topic, and please again, the personal stuff handle privately. i think we can do much better than name calling, blaming and all of that.

thank you in advance.

[Tad Carlucci]

(11-28-2012 11:44 AM)dakillakm Resident Wrote:  OK, I think I understand how the odds are increased for "improving" upon the parents. How does this, in turn, translate to a 25% price drop on cats in the market is my sticking point? Just because I've improved upon a parent by one trait does not necessarily mean that a) I'm going to put that box for sale or b) that that box is more or less valuable than the parent. It seems to me that these factors are based on what traits are improved upon, how much more recessive/new/desirable are the improvements, etc.

The odds worsen from 5-in-2 for success producing any breeding pair to 3-in-4 for producing a pair where each offspring/new-parent has at least one trait improved (more recessive) than one of their parents.

Dropping the age-in without also lowering the age-out allows one extra box. That extra box raises the 3-in-4 odds to 1-in-1.

That means, 25% more people will be producing 'improvements' each generation. And that means the desirability of any cat will be lowered. Why purchase if, baring exceedingly bad luck, you'll produce it on your own?

Whether YOU (the random reader) choose to sell a given cat doesn't enter into it.

If you produced it, you're not buying it.

And if you're not selling it, someone of the several thousand breeders almost certainly will.

Remember, I'm not speaking about individual success. That's controlled by random factors. But when we speak of group success (where the group is 'all breeders') randomness is effectively eliminated and it's simply a matter of turning the breeding crank for results to pop out.