The Ratios

[Fuzzbucket]

I have the bad feeling that certain breeds rotate during the day. You seem to find tsunamis easily, I don't see them at all. And while I can catch the occasional vine (one last week), jumpsnake hasn't seen any in a long time. And while I seem to see pebbles whenever I go to the volcano biome, you needed a whole day to catch two. *shrugs* Things sure are strange.

I think it ALL depends on exactly when one is there. Which is why I honestly don't believe there is anything TJ can do.... LUCK comes into it, and sod's law, and stuff !

[Natayah]

I've always been a bit confused about ratios. It seems to me that common and uncommon and whatever else all go thru seasons or breeding spurts and then its changed again. Sometimes its really Easy to breed and.or catch variou Dragons, sometimes it is not.

 

Is that not the case? Do certain dragons just randomly have a large increase or decrease? Thats how it works in nature. Various creatures will go thru great breeding cycles and then something else changes. Resources, Divorce, Tired of Hatchlings always saying they have to use the bathroom during loong trips .... I think playing with the adjustments now and then is great because imo it makes it more realistic.

 

As realistic as ownng 5000 or more Dragons rarely hate each other and you magically inhereted an amazing cave where Embers and Water Dragons live in perfect harmony. Changes in breeds make me more interested in going biome hunting. I just seem to enjoy it because for me the fittest to survive mindset seems to be reflected in the AP,.

Edited July 2, 2012 by natayah

[Darkhole54321]

I think what some of you guys are trying to say that the ratios should be at a set value, right? Commons are common no matter what, rares are always rare.

 

Well, believe it or not, purple dorsals are so common in the AP and Cave because few people actually want or have them, despite the value in red dorsals.

 

Now lets say stripes had a set ratio. They are valuable because of their breeding projects, not necessarily their rareness. Their rejects or failures would fall into the AP, continuing to flood it. If they dominated the AP all the time, they might have to be fixed up or removed.

 

Sound familiar? It should. That's basically what happened to Frills, though there were other things involved in that, that I won't get into.

 

The game not moving ratios the way it does now will still result in AP floods, but with less diversity, and more severe numbers.

[olympe]

As far as I remember, nobody wants set ratios, because the demand is different for each breed. To name a few names, whiptails (among others) are not a favorite among players. They are not blockers because the cave produces more of them than of, let's say, nebulas, but because people don't like to raise as many of them.

 

I remember when Silvi's lair had stats on the breeds of eggs and hatchies as a feature, and what I noticed then was just that: Blocker breeds are not more common than other commons, quite the contrary. However, their numbers still exceed demand because players don't want to raise as many of them. (Among all common breeds, most blockers were among the ten breeds with the lowest stats.)

 

So, obviously, set ratios are not a viable solution to the ratio problem. Which is why I (and some others) want a system that caters to demand. Ideally, this would mean that, despite differences in demand, all common eggs would be equally easy to get.

 

Example: People like nebulas 10 times better than whiptails. (Numbers and breeds are arbitrarily chosen, so don't tell me I don't know the numbers, I know I don't know them, okay?) Since people pick up 10 times as many nebulas as whiptails, the cave would produce 10 nebulas for any whiptail in the future, making both breeds equally easy to get.

 

(On another note, all ratio suggestions are supposed to apply to common breeds only, to avoid the outcry of, "Rares are rare for a reason!")

[~!~]

(On another note, all ratio suggestions are supposed to apply to common breeds only, to avoid the outcry of, "Rares are rare for a reason!")

I think perhaps a better way to incorporate rarity levels into this would be to have a set ratio of commons to uncommons to rares. Say, for instance, the cave makes 30 commons and 10 uncommons for every rare egg produced. But when it comes to which commons are made, we apply the fluid ratios.

 

That way, if, for some reason, Silvers become much more popular than Golds, there will still be a small number of Silvers produced, but an even smaller number of Golds.

 

It doesn't seem like a very useful feature now, but who knows what the future holds. It might be that for some reason or another, fluid ratios amongst uncommon and rare dragons will become useful, it can't hurt to have them even if they're not necessary, and it won't be too much trouble for TJ to add them if he's adding them for commons.

[TheGrox]

Giving this a little bump because I just came across it and, well, the ratios seem to be quite a topic of discussion at the moment. And I think we should discuss how we would like them to work. ^^

 

I'm certainly not happy with the way the ratios allow rares to breed really well for a while, but now they seem to be going back to not breeding at all. Maybe if we had a change to ow the ratios worked, we wouldn't have such a marked change.

[jumpsnake]

Yes yes yes What olympe said!!!!

 

I wonder why TJ won't weigh in on this? Or has he somewhere and I've missed it? This seems like such a simple solution-- to blocker breeds, etc. My other idea, which I may have mentioned a year ago in this thread, is to uncouple cave ratios from breeding ratios. This way, the breeding of things like stripes, nebulas, blacks, etc would not affect how many cb ones were generated.

 

Is this just a nightmare to code for some reason?? Am I totally missing something here?

[FortyTwo]

Giving this a little bump because I just came across it and, well, the ratios seem to be quite a topic of discussion at the moment. And I think we should discuss how we would like them to work. ^^

 

I'm certainly not happy with the way the ratios allow rares to breed really well for a while, but now they seem to be going back to not breeding at all. Maybe if we had a change to ow the ratios worked, we wouldn't have such a marked change.

I've always thought that ratios should be abolished and that the "fixed" chance system should be brought back. Seems ratios have really only created more problems for years.

 

So I totally agree. c:

[Slaskia]

I've always thought that ratios should be abolished and that the "fixed" chance system should be brought back. Seems ratios have really only created more problems for years.

 

So I totally agree. c:

^This, definately. I kind of suggested that myself in another thread *forgets which one...think i was one of the raffle related ones*

[Pikabubba]

I've always thought that ratios should be abolished and that the "fixed" chance system should be brought back. Seems ratios have really only created more problems for years.

 

 

 

 

^^Agreed with this suggestion as well. Metallic diarrhea for a month and 6+ months of absolutely nothing just doesn't work well for many of us.

[xeyla]

^^Agreed with this suggestion as well. Metallic diarrhea for a month and 6+ months of absolutely nothing just doesn't work well for many of us.

I agree also with your post. I think we should have fixed amounts of what drops, when they drop, and where they drop. Out of all the adoptable games I've ever played, DC is the only one where ratios seem unfair to me. We have so many people who join the game, stay for a week, not enjoy it, and then leave. But, (not sure of this) their dragons count towards the "ratios", right? Its like someone going into a store to buy all of one item just so the other shoppers can't have it, then throw said item into the trash when they get home.

[olympe]

xeyla, I think this is the smallest of our problems. People who just joined, got a couple of dragons and then left again typically started out with commons, and their commons counting towards the ratios is a good thing IMHO. (Although I'm not too fond of ratios, to be honest.)

 

A much bigger problem is that ratios seem to adapt rather slowly to changes. This is proven time and again by breeding sprees - be it the (almost?) yearly metallic breeding spree, or the current seasonal spree (at least in the cave, winters are a dime a dozen at the moment, while other seasonals have been impossible to catch or breed all year long. And don't remind me of the regular alt breeding sprees - last year, there was a period of several weeks where all bred blacks were alts. (The only non-alts I found in fansites back then were CBs. All of them.)

 

I still think that we need two different changes. First, within the group of common dragons only - meaning anything but metals, prizes, holidays, trios, blusangs and GWs - should have fluid ratios towards each other and cater to demand.

 

Another thing - since bred dragons have much less value than CBs - make breeding ratios independent of cave ratios. Just put set success chances on breeding, with a cap of the total tries needed for an egg. (Like, after 25 breeding attempts, you're guaranteed an egg from any kind of pairing. This equals about half a year of breeding every week.)

[Ayelldee]

With the metallic breeding going back to its usual bleak - 'not this week either, pal'. It's gonna be a really really LONG year til the bleeping ratios get re-set again. Is there NO way to tweak the ratios so that they even out over the months instead of this alleged metal rain - I say alleged because it certainly hasn't given me jack shirt.

 

This sucks majorly.

[TheGrox]

I agree with Forty, that we need a fixed chance system, rather than ratios. If you breed a Gold, you should have a fixed chance at getting a Gold egg. There shouldn't be periods where Golds breed like commons (like recently), and then periods when they don't breed at all (like most of last year >.>). This just ruins the game for everyone, and probably pushes a lot of players away from DC itself.

 

The current situation is causing so many problems and so much bad feeling between players, and it's all down to the ratios. They don't work.

 

 

--------------------

 

I was just thinking about breeding ratios generally. What if we made it so that shorter lineages (and CB's) are more likely to breed than longer lineages? This would solve the problem of prize-dragon distribution (CB Tins and Shimmers would breed well, thus distributing 2nd gens). But moreover I've seen people complaining that lineages aren't worth anything in trades. Maybe this would mean that if you did breed a nice, long lineage, it would be worth something? Hmm. Just a thought. It'll probably get shot down.

Edited March 3, 2013 by TheGrox

[Pokemonfan13]

Grox, I <3 that idea, and have thought of it myself, but I suspect lineage makers would scream, which is why I never suggested it. It can be frustrating enough when you keep getting the wrong breed out of a pairing or refusals of destined mates, add in reduced breeding chances the higher the gen and I suspect all but the dedicated would stop making lovely huge lineages.

Edited March 3, 2013 by Pokemonfan13

[Amur_Rama]

I was just thinking about breeding ratios generally. What if we made it so that shorter lineages (and CB's) are more likely to breed than longer lineages? This would solve the problem of prize-dragon distribution (CB Tins and Shimmers would breed well, thus distributing 2nd gens). But moreover I've seen people complaining that lineages aren't worth anything in trades. Maybe this would mean that if you did breed a nice, long lineage, it would be worth something? Hmm. Just a thought. It'll probably get shot down.

The only problem I see with this suggestion is that DC (or rather, TJ and some mods) have stated time and time again that lineage isn't really a "thing" in the game. So has refused to do anything that would give greater "weight" to a 2gen over a 27th gen, the coding looks at the dragon having an action performed on it, not on it's ancestors. This suggestion would effectively make certain lineages more valuable than others, which is supposed to be a non-issue because lineages are "fan made".

 

However, I find that logic to have been dragged out back and shot, thanks to what's been done to deadlines. (And all the more annoying since nothing official has been said about it either.) Since it would seem that sort of lineage has "negative" value to some people and TJ's responded to that, instead of the motivation for creating deadlines in the first place.

 

I'm totally in favor of the idea. But I have reservations on how it would be carried out. It's one thing to stop a giant snarl of a "nasty" lineage you find in the AP, but what if someone is deliberately making a long pattern lineage. Once the gens start adding up, they'll find it increasingly hard to continue the line, which would be frustrating, and probably not increase their desirability among the masses anyway.

 

Perhaps some kind of generational limit could be imposed, i.e. the infertility would only start kicking in at the 10-15th generation or so? That gives most lines plenty of time to play out for a pattern, but should hinder, but not stop, random giant messy lineaged breeding.

 

[purplehaze]

I was just thinking about breeding ratios generally. What if we made it so that shorter lineages (and CB's) are more likely to breed than longer lineages? This would solve the problem of prize-dragon distribution (CB Tins and Shimmers would breed well, thus distributing 2nd gens). But moreover I've seen people complaining that lineages aren't worth anything in trades. Maybe this would mean that if you did breed a nice, long lineage, it would be worth something? Hmm. Just a thought. It'll probably get shot down.

Please, no. Those of us who try to breed pretty even gen lineages have a hard enough time as it is. If it got even harder as the lineage got longer it would be incredibly frustrating.

 

And I don't think it would add to the value of those lineages for trading anyway.

[Vhale]

I wouldn't mind seeing it as a breed specific thing, but would rather not see it over all. I am curious to what end, most of the ratio offsetting is done by breeding though. If people didn't breed to excess, then they wouldn't mess up ratios, so to speak. But the only way to stop army breeding would be to give dragons a shelf life. IE, if a dragon is over 5 years old, it stops breeding. But I'm sure people wanting 2nd gen hollies would hold a tar and feathering.

 

I'm not mathy enough to calculate it. But if we have 40,000 users breeding basically the most popular stuff, it seems like it would be easier for the ratios to go out of whack then when there were 5000 users. So, how to adjust for that? I think he already stated that he makes dragons over a year old stop counting towards ratios. But that doesn't stop all those dragons from breeding eggs after that year is up. So, I think in that way, they still count by default. It probably depends on activity of the user base and how many people are doing that.

[Slaskia]

I wouldn't mind seeing it as a breed specific thing, but would rather not see it over all. I am curious to what end, most of the ratio offsetting is done by breeding though. If people didn't breed to excess, then they wouldn't mess up ratios, so to speak. But the only way to stop army breeding would be to give dragons a shelf life. IE, if a dragon is over 5 years old, it stops breeding. But I'm sure people wanting 2nd gen hollies would hold a tar and feathering.

Well...one way to counter that is it make it so that 'exclusive one time only CBs' (Holidays and Prize dragons), would be exempt from that.

[Fiona]

But the only way to stop army breeding would be to give dragons a shelf life. IE, if a dragon is over 5 years old, it stops breeding.

Totally opposed to that. What about Frills? Bright Pinks? What about TJ's Thuweds? The oldest breeds he has, like greens and vines, are over 5 years old now. My oldest CB gold is 4 years old now. I would be really ticked if next January he stopped breeding altogether.

[Amazon_warrior]

I really, really dislike the idea of higher-gen dragons going infertile. It's already enough of a challenge to make a big planned lineage, this would make it far worse without adding any value at all - probably decreasing their value, in fact. (Not to mention that big-lineage breeders quite often choose to breed and raise commoner breeds, thereby helping to balance the wretched ratios...)

[olympe]

Infertility for older dragons or higher-gens is a very bad idea in my book. Breeding lineages is hard enough as it is, and certain lineages are especially hard to breed. I have a couple of 15th+ gen bronze tinsels from a perfect stairstep, and I wouldn't want them to stop breeding just because they're high-gen.

[Fuzzbucket]

I really, really dislike the idea of higher-gen dragons going infertile. It's already enough of a challenge to make a big planned lineage, this would make it far worse without adding any value at all - probably decreasing their value, in fact. (Not to mention that big-lineage breeders quite often choose to breed and raise commoner breeds, thereby helping to balance the wretched ratios...)

I agree. I built a wonderful 8th gen lineage - of GREYS with shadows at the base both almost all greys !!! I would be very annoyed if I couldn't make it to 9th, which I am considering. As to tins, which tend not to be even gen, but very long... NO, please no.

 

And no to shelf lives, too. There has to be a better way.

[Vhale]

eep! /hides from tar and feathers

 

I know people have suggested breed limits as well and that's been pummeled. So I guess what I'm asking, is it literally possible to fix the ratios if 50% of the huge population is trying to breed say, blacks, and has thousands of them? Or is that like fighting against the tide? Basing that on what I do, I know I tend to try to breed my special rares first, then I'll pick up whatever else. And there's no limit to me doing that.

 

Do you think it could be evened out by faster releases? Being egg locked doesn't stop people from breeding for the ap, but it does slow down trading when people are locked with new eggs or building new collections. Or at least, it slows me down. And I don't breed for the ap then because it's usually overstuffed anyway.

[RWyvern]

Why not just have fixed ratios? It can't be that hard to code. It would also be easier if we knew a dragon's exact rarity and worth in trades. At least it would be a help for me.