The Ratios

[kerrikins]

I think more frequent checks would probably be the best idea.

 

I don't think changing to 'if you breed red with x, you will get a red _% of the time' will work because rarer dragons are probably actually bred more often than all the commons out there, especially since rare x holiday is so popular. That's probably why TJ has it based on ratios, so that our own breeding habits don't just mean that 'rares' become a glut because we breed them nonstop.

 

Obviously something wonky is going on right now when there's such a big flood of cb metals, but I think that a revamp of the ratio system would be better than moving away from it entirely.

[whitebaron]

Actually, I just think there should be a different minimum and maximum ratio for every breed.

 

Currently, it seems like they can get really really tiny or really really huge. Just use a hard cap, like banks use for interest - technically, you could have any value from negative percentages to high hundreds, but the market usually cuts them between 0.125 and 10. They have learned through some major financial breakdowns (1929, anyone?) that highly pulsating systems are prone to break.

 

All DC needs to is take some cues and impose some hard caps -

or else, for every silver you want to breed or pickup, you'll need a million blockers to be collected - unless its breeding spree, then you'll be guaranteed it.

Edited March 7, 2013 by whitebaron

[olympe]

To take the ratio discussion from the "more and bigger releases" thread back where it belongs:

 

From here:

but they do have a point, it is a self created problem.

 

however, i do agree with you.  you cannot force people to take more of a dragon they dont want; just as your not goign to get a group of people who dont want a cave blocker to give up precious egg space for the Cave Blocker.  atleast not without some sort of reward for their effort; like the Cave Blockers thread over in the trading section.

 

[...]

 

the last (and best) option is tweaking the cave blockers breed ratios.  if a dragon is so neglected by majority of players, why is the dragon still dropping super often?  it seems like the easiest, best and less ripple effect option would be to tweak the dragons breeding ratio so that they produce or drop less.

 

this will have the desired effect. 

 

1 - i imagine it would be easier for TJ to occomplish than the others.

 

2 - they would still drop all year round, so collectors woudl still get their 4 day fix of fresh blood and newbies woudlnt' have to wait for their season to come in for scroll completion (plus the issue brought up with rejections on lineage projects)

 

3 - it woudl increase the value slightly of the common cave blockers and make them more desireble

 

4 - less frequent drops (like as frequent as a Ridgewing, Sunset, Pillow, Vine, ect) moves the cave faster.

 

 

so take pebbles for instance, instead of dropping 100 per hour in the Volcano, only drop 75 each hour.

Well, there's just one presumption you're working with that's totally wrong. Way back when Silvi's Lair still had breed stats, one thing became painfully obvious: "rare" commons (like nebulas) are not rare because they drop less than others, they are among the most common breeds according to the number of eggs and hatchlings posted on Silvi's. And, despite what appears to be fact, blocker breeds are not blockers because they're more common than other, more "desirable" breeds, but because they just won't get picked up by us players.

 

As I said, way back when Silvi's showed breed stats for all breeds, these were among the least common eggs/hatchlings on the site: whiptails, mints, pebbles, water horses, guardians, deep seas... Pretty much all of the blockers were at the bottom of the list for commons, according to their numbers. (High numbers on top, low numbers on the bottom.)

 

Still, it's probably easier to create common ratios (meaning for common dragons only!) that cater to demand than get hundreds of players to raise blockers they don't want to raise.

[whitebaron]

Olympe, that they did not show up in those stats simply means that noone kept them on their scrolls or even picked them up in the first place. There's no way this can be used to determine how many dragons actually drop.

[Obscure_Trash]

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 problem I have with this is that it puts weight on shorter gens being more valuable, which, in a game sense, just isn't correct. We get enough new users who are swayed by strong opinions and play their game based on some user thoughts rather than their own (inbreeding, for example), while in a game sense and to plenty of other users, there's no problem with it or no distinction. (Myself for example, much more likely to pick up longer gen even gens than shorter gen ones.)

 

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.

 

It is definitely a thing in the game. It's only users who put weight on the value depending on lineage, though.

 

However, I find that logic to have been dragged out back and shot, thanks to what's been done to deadlines.

 

I think the problem of disingenuous lineages that TJ brought up with deadlines falls perfectly in line with why I'm against the quoted suggestion. Deadlines put weight on the fact that if a lineage is 'clean' and shorter it is of greater value and prettier - but this is totally userbased, not something in game.

 

~

 

It's hard to really have an opinion on whether or not something would be better or worse without understanding how things work, but if 'fixed ratios' aren't how things work, I wouldn't be against a trial run of how they affected the cave.

[stogucheme]

But it will make rares easier to get. It will mean people with many gold dragons will be able to easily hoard more, AKA once you have a sizeable collection of golds, breeding them will produce a good number more golds each week.

 

How do I know this will actually happen? As I've said elsewhere, the reason golds, silvers, and blacks are overpopulated right now is because the ratios weren't really enforced for breeding.

In other words, when the ratios were effectively disabled, the population of desirable dragons shot up. When the ratios were effectively disabled, rares ceased to be rare and were rather easy to get. Yes, CB golds and such were still difficult to get, but that's only because CB eggs properly obeyed the ratios.

Didn't read the whole thread, but here's a question: why should the people who hunt in cave be punished for the breeder's actions?

Because if you get many Golds by breeding, you keep them out of both the cave and breeding pools.

And if you can only get them from those breeders, they have no reason to stop.

And it's not fair to wannabe breeders, either.

 

You may think it'll make rares easier to get, and on one level that's true, but the real issue is that about the only ones who can get rares are the ones that already have them. (And fast clickers. But that's a small population, and they usually become breeders anyway.)

 

So I think cave ratios and breeding ratios need to be separated. (Also, frozens not counted towards the breeding ratios.)

 

Not gonna fix everything, probably. But I mean, that'll solve so many problems outright...

[airaani]

Is there any way to edit the poll? I just saw I made a typo (chance/change)

[Fiona]

PM a mod. They can edit the poll.

 

I'm going to null my vote on the poll anyway. I think the ratios exist for important reasons. They may be frustrating to us, but face it, without ratios of some sort all of us would be hoarding the shiny things and letting the common things sit around, to the point where the shiny things would no longer be rare and the common things would be as scarce as hen's teeth.

 

On the other hand, I want to be able to waltz into the cave and click on the exact egg I'm looking for instantly. Not you, just me.

Edited April 30, 2013 by Fiona BlueFire

[airaani]

But I was never suggesting any change that drastic to the ratios... I don't want rares to be more common. This was only ever a discussion of the ratios of one common breed to another.

 

Edit: update to the first post that I hope will explain my point better.

Edited May 1, 2013 by airaani

[angelicdragonpuppy]

I really have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, I'd love it if things that are supposed to be common, well, bred equally with other commons. Time and time again people have reported breeding two common breeds together, but because one breed is newer than the other it dominates like 95% of the breeding results for nearly a year straight, which is just... frustrating. Black Teas and Royal Crimsons have been around for a fair amount of time now but they still seem to only breed their own type unless bred with the absolute most common of commons. A fixed percentage system would fix that.

 

On the other hand... having ratios that bend and shift to the player base means the game isn't static, which I think is also a good thing. It's sort of entertaining in its own way to see ratios shift and previously commons become rare and vice-versa, as has happened with blacks, seasonals, and to a smaller extent blusangs.

 

I wonder if some sort of mixed system could be implemented? Like, breeds are put within a set percentage bracket, but one that can shift slightly within those boundaries. Like maybe a normal rate of 10% that can shift to 5% or 15%.

 

I'm bad at maths but I hope that gets the general idea across X___x

[Shamiir]

Quoting angelicdragonpuppy

having ratios that bend and shift to the player base means the game isn't static, which I think is also a good thing. It's sort of entertaining in its own way to see ratios shift and previously commons become rare and vice-versa, as has happened with blacks, seasonals, and to a smaller extent blusangs.

This.

I like that it brings some strategy into the game. You have to watch the trends and choose what projects you are going to work on, what to go catch in the cave...

 

[Pixxelation]

To be honest, I am sick and tired of hearing that creating lineages isn't an official part of the game, and thus is an invalid argument for everything. Lineages are a official part of the game, and are what many users turn to to keep the game interesting and more than just collecting the same image of a dragon repeatedly. Saying that lineages are not a valid argument is like saying that rares should not be worth more than commons--although they are distributed in unequal amounts, it is the userbase that values them differently. They are a part of the game, and how many users choose to play. Denying that will make much of the userbase unhappy, and lead to a lot of suggestions that could improve the game for many people getting shot down for faulty logic. Honestly, I feel like it's a Big Lie, a propaganda technique in which something is repeated enough that people believe it's true--we've heard the argument so much that people have just accepted that lineages are supposed to be ignored in every suggestion.

 

~

 

The biggest issue with the ratios system that I see is that the breeds a larger group of people WANT to breed and collect become impossible to obtain because the Cave decides that there are too many and decreases production. That's like saying, "Hmm, iPhones are increasing in popularity. Let's halve production so that we have more unhappy customers and so second-hand prices soar," with second-hand prices being users trading for more. That's the biggest issue with the ratios system, and why I feel it needs to change.

 

I would propose providing a fixed % system for breeding, and a modified ratios system for the biomes that is similar to what we have now, but checks more often, say daily. I don't know what the details would be, but I think it would make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

[rumor33]

I feel uncomfortable saying whether or not the ratios need to be tweaked without a full understanding of what they are based off of and how they function.

 

As has been said I do like the kind of fluid nature the ratios have. The peaks and valleys in breed availability keeps stuff interesting.

 

I will say though there appears to be a bit of a problem with some breeds dominating commonxcommon breedings.

[HeatherMarie]

I feel uncomfortable saying whether or not the ratios need to be tweaked without a full understanding of what they are based off of and how they function.

SO Much This!!

 

I get the frustrations over bonked ratios, I've *been* there. *stares at multiples stalled armies* But how can we seriously propose specific changes to the ratio when we really have no idea how it actually runs? What exactly *is* ratio-functioning, how are rares 'calculated', how are commons 'calculated', we get bits and pieces of info over time but nothing solid. And honestly it's putting the cart before the horse to suggest changes to something when you have no idea how that something is actually functioning to being with.

[whitebaron]

Actually, I just think there should be a different minimum and maximum ratio for every breed.

 

Currently, it seems like they can get really really tiny or really really huge. Just use a hard cap, like banks use for interest - technically, you could have any value from negative percentages to high hundreds, but the market usually cuts them between 0.125 and 10. They have learned through some major financial breakdowns (1929, anyone?) that highly pulsating systems are prone to break.

 

All DC needs to is take some cues and impose some hard caps -

or else, for every silver you want to breed or pickup, you'll need a million blockers to be collected - unless its breeding spree, then you'll be guaranteed it.

Quoted for adp - this would do exactly what you described.

 

 

--edit--

@marie: you dont need all formulas in order to understand how ratios work. It was outlined very well on the last two pages.

fertility (breed) = n/amount(breed)

whatever else is in that formula is irrelevant, for reaching a global perspective.

Edited March 18, 2014 by whitebaron

[AnanoKimi]

To be honest, I am sick and tired of hearing that creating lineages isn't an official part of the game, and thus is an invalid argument for everything. Lineages are a official part of the game, and are what many users turn to to keep the game interesting and more than just collecting the same image of a dragon repeatedly. Saying that lineages are not a valid argument is like saying that rares should not be worth more than commons--although they are distributed in unequal amounts, it is the userbase that values them differently. They are a part of the game, and how many users choose to play. Denying that will make much of the userbase unhappy, and lead to a lot of suggestions that could improve the game for many people getting shot down for faulty logic. Honestly, I feel like it's a Big Lie, a propaganda technique in which something is repeated enough that people believe it's true--we've heard the argument so much that people have just accepted that lineages are supposed to be ignored in every suggestion.

 

~

 

The biggest issue with the ratios system that I see is that the breeds a larger group of people WANT to breed and collect become impossible to obtain because the Cave decides that there are too many and decreases production. That's like saying, "Hmm, iPhones are increasing in popularity. Let's halve production so that we have more unhappy customers and so second-hand prices soar," with second-hand prices being users trading for more. That's the biggest issue with the ratios system, and why I feel it needs to change.

 

I would propose providing a fixed % system for breeding, and a modified ratios system for the biomes that is similar to what we have now, but checks more often, say daily. I don't know what the details would be, but I think it would make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

Lineages are definitely a thing. Just because some users like my self don't put as much value in them as others does not mean they are not a valid part of the game. People really need to get rid of that idea.

 

I do not know how ratios work but what I have read so far this idea makes the most sense. Cave ratios and Breeding ratios should be kept separate. What a user breeds should not influence what drops in the cave and vice versa. What we breed does not go to the cave if we abandon or over breed it and causing a particular breed to produce more over another, especially if it is unwanted, only causes more abandons and more tries which leads to more of that breed existing and the cave thinking we're all gonna flood and die with all these eggs.

[cyradis4]

Lineages are definitely a thing. Just because some users like my self don't put as much value in them as others does not mean they are not a valid part of the game. People really need to get rid of that idea.

 

I do not know how ratios work but what I have read so far this idea makes the most sense. Cave ratios and Breeding ratios should be kept separate. What a user breeds should not influence what drops in the cave and vice versa. What we breed does not go to the cave if we abandon or over breed it and causing a particular breed to produce more over another, especially if it is unwanted, only causes more abandons and more tries which leads to more of that breed existing and the cave thinking we're all gonna flood and die with all these eggs.

The "lineages don't matter!" argument originated from certain mods, and I agree with you there: lineages are a major part of the game, whether or not some people choose to value them.

 

I disagree on the cave ratios and breed ratios. I think they do need to be kept linked (which I assume is how they are now). What needs to happen is the oscillations need to be damped out of the system, at least a bit. Some fluctuation adds spice to the game, but not these huge boom / bust sequences. Specifically:

 

1. Increase the frequency at which the system updates the ratios.

Right now, most cycles tend to last for several months at a time, strongly suggesting that the ratios update at an interval of longer than a month (that's coming from 3 months of nothing but Black Alts followed by 8+ months of no alts, as well as other similar situations).

 

or

 

2. Institute hard caps on the ratios.

(note: all numbers are chosen to help with understanding the topic and are in no way actual verified numbers).

Ie, lets say the ratio for Royal Crimsons, a common, was meant to be say 50%, but due to the ratios right now its at 95%. If you instituted hard caps up and down, at say 25% for crimsons, then the Crimson ratio right now would be at 75%, because it could go no higher due to the hard cap.

Right now, lots of people are breeding Crimsons. So when the ratios update next, you could have a situation where the breed would go from 95% to 5%, because of how over-bred they were when they were breeding so well. Boom and bust. But with the hard caps, you'd at most swing from 75% to 25%, for two reasons. First, because of the hard caps. Second, because less were *bred* during the boom phase, so when the ratios update, there is less to be made up for.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[CNR4806]

I would propose providing a fixed % system for breeding, and a modified ratios system for the biomes that is similar to what we have now, but checks more often, say daily. I don't know what the details would be, but I think it would make the game more enjoyable for everyone.

The problem with breeding not obeying ratios while CBs do is that breeds considered desirable by the general playerbase will have massive CB droughts.

 

It has happened before.

[angelicdragonpuppy]

Actually, I just think there should be a different minimum and maximum ratio for every breed.

 

Currently, it seems like they can get really really tiny or really really huge. Just use a hard cap, like banks use for interest - technically, you could have any value from negative percentages to high hundreds, but the market usually cuts them between 0.125 and 10. They have learned through some major financial breakdowns (1929, anyone?) that highly pulsating systems are prone to break.

 

All DC needs to is take some cues and impose some hard caps -

or else, for every silver you want to breed or pickup, you'll need a million blockers to be collected - unless its breeding spree, then you'll be guaranteed it.

 

Yes, something like this. Perhaps wiggle room could also be dependent on normal rarity--for example, Silvers would never vary too much either way, whereas commons could do decent sized swings in either direction. So maybe up to a 20% shift either way, based on their original rates...

 

@Marie19R: TJ doesn't really seem to like sharing such information or, well, we'd have it already. That being said, the options are either sit around twiddling our thumbs, or taking a stab at suggestions anyway. I don't think there's any harm in pointing out issues we're seeing and theorizing ways to fix them. It's a fact that some commons dominate other commons for long stretches of time, that certain breeds take drastic population swings. These are things I'd like to see changed, no matter what current system we're based on.

 

@CNR4806: Couldn't this be fixed by separating drop and breeding ratios? If bred rares can decrease CB rares, that's hardly a good thing...

[Pixxelation]

The problem with breeding not obeying ratios while CBs do is that breeds considered desirable by the general playerbase will have massive CB droughts.

 

It has happened before.

If the ratios are kept separate, though, I don't see how this would happen. Also, if breeding were to become percentage based, I'd love to see the percentages adjusted somewhat frequently to maintain the spice, as you put it, when breeding, and keep things interesting.

[Guillotine]

I see no reason why a fixed percentage system that is occasionally altered slightly (my preference is for them to be truly fixed, but plus or minus a bit every so often isn't going to hurt anyone) and used by cave and breeding alike isn't heavily preferred over yet another ratio system, since the breeding/raising of certain breeds would no longer affect the drop rate which in turn would prevent the boom/bust cycles of the current system.

 

But then, my preference is for anything that eliminates the massive swings in breed production we current deal with, and even an altered ratio system would still suffer from those cycles, just restricted to certain egg production methods.

[HeatherMarie]

This is only my opinion and I understand some people see things differently:

 

I don't give a crap about lineages. But I'm not about to say they aren't real or important to many people. *However*, what I've seen around the forums is a lot of people putting *too* much importance on lineages. The very fact that we can see lineages on DC makes it obvious that they are indeed real in the game; But the *value* of low-gen, stairstep, even-gen, CB, whatever, is purely user-driven. Lineages are a thing; value is subjective.

 

I do *not* agree with separate CB and breeding ratios, because honestly it makes no sense to me. No matter where the dragon comes from or who it's parents are, it's still a part of the overall species population. They aren't a different species or genetically made differently just because they have a different lineage. A Pillow is a Pillow is a Pillow, and the overall population of Pillows should take into account all Pillows (yes I'm aware the ratios only 'count' for a year).

 

Separate ratios are also yet another push to make CB vs lineaged into an in-game difference, and I don't like that. Users can go nuts about CBs for all I care, but in-cave they are no different then bred dragons, they don't *function* differently, and personally I'd like it to stay that way.

[whitebaron]

I see no reason why a fixed percentage system that is occasionally altered slightly (my preference is for them to be truly fixed, but plus or minus a bit every so often isn't going to hurt anyone) and used by cave and breeding alike isn't heavily preferred over yet another ratio system, since the breeding/raising of certain breeds would no longer affect the drop rate which in turn would prevent the boom/bust cycles of the current system.

 

But then, my preference is for anything that eliminates the massive swings in breed production we current deal with, and even an altered ratio system would still suffer from those cycles, just restricted to certain egg production methods.

TJ likes ratios.

 

That aside: fixed percentages would mean that TJ himself would need to make all decisions about rarity - and i don't see that happening at all.

 

--edit--

@marie:

The more dragons are in the system, the more will be bred instead of caveborn. Its just a simple numbers game, increased overall population can breed a lot more - and people will always want the rares more than the ultracommons.

 

Edited March 18, 2014 by whitebaron

[Guillotine]

Liking ratios reeeeeally isn't a good reason to keep a broken system (and flood/drought cycles do indicate that it's not working). :/ And setting the ratios means he's already making decisions about how rare a dragon is, just with massively less control over preventing flood/drought cycles, which is what this suggestion is supposed to prevent.

[Natayah]

The current system doesn't bother me.