Breeding Questions & Suggestions

[Talaye]

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.

This is why 'low luck' counts by months and not attempts. Attempts build up a lot quicker than months do, making it so you could be considered 'low luck' after a single month, which would just be silly. XD

Colorists have never been forced to do one kind of a raffle or another and I honestly don't think that they should be. It's nice seeing them set up things the way they want to and are most comfortable doing so.  

[Xaki]

@Kamiki: I'm going to have to agree with Meeki here. (Hope I'm reading correctly? XD;; )

If I say that Mirando has no breeding rights (which basically means a choosing the mate + having a basket) to the baskets from my breeding (thus letting Miranda have 2 other couples) and turning around to co-own Miranda a basket would completely violate the "no rights" thing that specifically allowed Miranda to enter two other pairings xp~~  

[Talaye]

Last thing from me for the night...

On the topic of edits:

Why -should- 100% omgedits be passed on just because you paid for the parents to get them? I think that the gen2 (gen whatever) Soqs that get little things here and there instead of full blown edits are more charming in the long run. They have their own characteristics and they aren't clones of the parents... Unless that's what you're looking for, of course; just breeding for traits and edits that you can then pass on to whatever you decide to breed next.

I also have never gotten how some people expect clothing and accessories to be genetic. It's nice to see them passed down from time to time but I will never get feeling entitled to them no matter how much you paid to have them put on the parent. I sure wasn't born wearing the same exact necklace that my mother was wearing when she gave birth to me.  

[Quickbeamed]

I wholeheartedly agree with Meeki. The whole co-owning with no rights, just to turn around and get a basket anyway (and potentially getting two others with couples that 'count') is just too sneaky to me.  

[Ameh]

On the recessive traits thing ELF and mouselet are talking about: colorists have done this before; one of the most recent examples I can recall is the Isabella x Dharmesh breeding; though neither parent has wind wings, lil put the wings on one of the children because Isabella's father is a wind.

I personally go through the WHOLE family line, back to the gen 1 parents and sometimes even use colorations and markings on the higher gen kids. Icarus's daughter, for example, has stripe markings reminiscent of Raja's tiger stripes. However, genetic traits will be rare, but they ARE looked at. Not only is the percentage "blood" of a breed looked at, but the rarity of the breed is also there, which makes traits from grandparents and beyond pretty rare, so not every breeding should come out with them.

I'm sure me and lil aren't the only colorists that look back upon generations; in fact, colorists I suspect would be more than happy to grandparent traits than frown upon looking back, as it gives us more ideas if we run out of using things from either parent.  

[Meepfur]

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.

I am totally with Silent on this.

It also screws things up if there is a Person C involved. Person A entered with A/B couple and won. Person C won a breeding with someone else, which C posted the entry for. If A and C have a couple, it now cannot be entered, because neither one is allowed to post, despite the fact that each one has a breeding left for the month.

Now, they can find other people to enter with (which I've done, because the other owner in my second couple is sick), but...why? o-o I'd rather keep trying with the established couple than have to throw together a new one if I want to keep trying for a second breeding that month.  

[Valdmir Talamore]

While I can see lowest luck raffle going to far I also think something should be done. There are so many pairs entering period from various owners and it doesn't seem right that two owners have to enter a same couple in 18 + raffles and then there are other owners whom enter one couple in one raffle win and just after the basket hatches they enter another couple and they win another raffle and have a basket again. While I understand this is the luck of the draw I think perhaps other chances should be given?

A few things I thought of:

Rp contest for low luck rped couples

Speed sale for low luck couples

Dice roll for low luck couples

Art contest for low luck couples


I also understand that the colorist have a lot of work piling on them, so maybe these could be done every other month? Or restricted to no edits? Or maybe one colorist can have their breedings be done this way instead of raffles if they decide they like the idea?

_____

I think the ancestral traits idea is only a good idea if its both optional for the colorist and the owners. If a owner doesn't care they shouldn't have to worry about that extra information. Likewise if a colorist does not want to be bothered with it they shouldn't have too.

A perfect example why this could be very annoying for colorist:

Zira has no parents, but her mate Veserus has parents.

Zira and Veserus are both no edits regular soquili, but Veserus's father is Sephiroth a highly edited soquili.

So the colorist would potentially have to deal with edits where before they didn't.

The colorist have enough work and enough people complaining about edits not being passed down as it is without this added problem.

_____

I think edits should rarely be passed down when only one parent has edits. When both parents have edits I think the edits should have a higher chance of being passed down. I also think the edits passed down should only be minor. When you pay for a raffle you are certainly not paying what a regular soquili cost custom wise and you get two to three to four if its an elder. Why should the colorist also have to do the extra work of edits for that price? Bribe breeding wise I think edits should be passed down minor to major for the price bribes are these days you should get what you are paying for and nothing less.

_____

My biggest concern when I read the new breeding rule was that what if I posted with a couple and won, but then the person that had been posting my other couple couldn't get on the computer in time to enter in the raffle, but I could have? The breedings are hard enough to get without having to worry about who post what.  

[Kyribird]

Have to agree with Meeki on the no right thing for the breeding raffles if they're claiming no rights. It's not fair, and it's incredibly stupid. It's just a loophole and a way around the rule which is there for a reason.  

[Excited Apathy]

I disagree about the co-owning, if only because not all of us co-own every single Soquili with only one or two other people and then trade off baskets/uterus-or-sperm-rights/whatever. For instance, Ronso is Tear's co-owner, but I have rights. So if the rule changed, Ronso would never ever be able to get a basket from her unless I changed the agreement so that she also had breeding rights. Also, I wouldn't have the option for a basket from Squall IF I ever bred him and IF he had three because the agreement states that Izzy gets a basket from his first breeding, never mind that I paid the majority of his price. Perhaps I'd have wiggle room because it says she gets A basket and not THE basket (a.k.a. 'the' being the one that would go to us if there were only two, therefore there being the option if there's three). Honestly, the idea gives me a MUCH bigger headache than the current rule.

It just seems unnesseccarily restrictive to me, and too extreme to go just because of the rare ones that deviate from the norm. It feels almost like punishing the community as a whole for the crimes of a few.  

[Excited Apathy]

Hmmm...thinking about it a bit, I may have misunderstood. If what is meant is 'oh, I'm just going to drop breeding rights for THIS raffle' then...yes, that shouldn't be allowed. God this confuses the hell out of me. ><  

[Kamiki]

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.

Why do you have to be getting personal about it? Really? Why do you ASSUME we're going to do that? We've never done that with breeding raffles. You co-own/breed a lot with Hatter or Cuter or a handful of others but you don't go making rules around you guys specifically? Mer, lilwere, and Ende have several mutually owned pets (and/or tend to give each other baskets from breeding) as well. And tons of other people. There's nothing wrong with it so why go around making conspiracy theories?

Say, I don't WIN raffles very often. I've won two in the past two years. And the last two that I have... Sabin hasn't gotten ANYTHING from either of them. Nymph (who I co-own with Sabin and split breeding rights) and Cadence - I didn't co-own my basket with Sabin, I did it with Sosi because it was MY breeding time for Nymph. And we're currently trying for Mahi and Noble Heart, and its counting against both of us because we DO fully intend to keep a basket each (or co-own a basket together if there are only two). So you see? Just because someone has the ability to take advantage of the system, doesn't mean they will.

But when it comes down to it, I just don't really care that much. I think IF it becomes a rule, it would be a bit overly restrictive, the shop getting too into your business about what you do with your own pets. But meh *shrugs* I just don't see why you have to go dragging me into a conspiracy theory here. I just don't think the shop should make preemptive rules that punish everyone because of what some people are afraid other people might do. I'm insulted that you're pointing the finger at me and Sabin like we've DONE this or plan on doing this when we haven't, and it would just as likely/easily could be abused by you and Hatter... or ANYONE who has a co-owned Soquili. *boggles*

Also@Bulls: Everyone is exchanging ideas here, and why you may disagree, I think its kind of rude to call anyone's idea "ridiculous." You can respectfully disagree about an issue without having to belittle it. I disagree with Meeki's restricting baskets idea, but that doesn't mean I think its stupid or without its merits.

Obviously the "lowest luck" idea wouldn't be a raffle, but there's not a law that says the breeders have to do raffles.

Breeders do "Colorists Choice" pickings all the time, and sometimes without a raffle. Ende did 3 not too long ago. How is picking a Soquili automatically just because its pretty any MORE fair than picking a Soquili just because its been trying the LONGEST out of anyone else? Some people might agree that someone trying for a year is "more" entitled to a breeding than someone who has been trying for 4 months. And the point Sabin is trying to make is, in theory, if more colorists did that on a fairly regular basis, then eventually everyone would get a breeding if they kept trying. Of course they'd still have the same luck as anyone else in the other raffles as well.

Also, its just being thrown out there as another option/idea for a colorist, not a "rule" per se.  

[Kamiki]

Talaye

Last thing from me for the night...

On the topic of edits:

Why -should- 100% omgedits be passed on just because you paid for the parents to get them? I think that the gen2 (gen whatever) Soqs that get little things here and there instead of full blown edits are more charming in the long run. They have their own characteristics and they aren't clones of the parents... Unless that's what you're looking for, of course; just breeding for traits and edits that you can then pass on to whatever you decide to breed next.

Essentially I agree - But here's the thing - with the current why edits are rolled the babies WOULDN'T get "little things there and there" unless its in the coloring. They either HAVE edits. Or don't. I don't think it has anything to do with the how much you paid for the parents. Some of the prettiest edited Soquili have been 2nd gen themselves (see Shen, Ezriel, Gabriel, Bedlam, Tisiphone, ect etc etc).

But I think if you have a really unique and edited Soquili. I'm going to use Reaper as an example because he's bred before and think he's cool and a good example. He's got some very unique and distinct edits. Now if he were to breed in theory with an unedited mare, as the current system is, his babies would have 45% chance to get any edits, 55% to get none at all. This is what I think is where the combining the difficulties of the parents would be more interesting if ALL babies got like... 50% or even 25% of his edits instead of some babies getting edits and some not getting any edits at all. Like his son Ezriel. He's far from a "clone" of his Daddy, but he's obviously shows traits from such a unique parent and in effect, makes him completely striking and interesting in his own way.

These are the "little things" I think are neat to be passed down from generation to generation. It doesn't have to be anything elaborate or full blown - even the smallest edits can make a Soquili look so interesting, and I just wish there was more a chance the breeders could so with that.  

[Meeki]

The co-ownership is BEING abused so that people end up with more baskets and get around that (Oh, I have no rights this time) thing. I think it should be respected completely. If someone absolutely is not supposed to have any rights to a pet that's entered in a raffle, IF it wins, that should be honored. No co-owning, no gifts. No rights, period.