Refuse to Have Refusals!

[Fuzzbucket]

Yeah, that was me, and I stand by that. Remember that animals are very different when it comes to breeding. Ofttimes, they'd rather breed with a dissatisfying mate than not breed at all. In addition, a large percentage of animal mating is forced. Now, because I know the human-level intelligence is about to come, remember that, although dragons do share and possibly surpass our intelligence level, we know very little about their culture, such as what is and isn't acceptable. For this reason, I've always viewed their culture as more animalistic, despite their intelligence levels. This helps to explain how they are "domesticated," or at least why they stay in your cave.

What about - for instance - those pandas in zoos that simply wouldn't - over YEARS and in the end they had to find another panda. There have been quite a few cases like that. Racehorses, too. Pedigreedogs - I've known people who ran kennels and would be at their wits' end - wanting the cash from the people who brought the (sigh; censorkipz) "lady dogs" but the dogs wouldn't do the deed, no matter how often they tried to persuade them. You stand by it all you want - but I don't buy it - sorry.

Edited June 2, 2014 by fuzzbucket

[Pixxelation]

What about - for instance - those pandas in zoos that simply wouldn't - over YEARS and in the end they had to find another panda. There have been quite a few cases like that. Racehorses, too. Pedigreedogs - I've known people who ran kennels and would be at their wits' end - wanting the cash from the people who brought the (sigh; censorkipz) "lady dogs" but the dogs wouldn't do the deed, no matter how often they tried to persuade them. You stand by it all you want - but I don't buy it - sorry.

First, dragons aren't going extinct to my knowledge, so pandas are an entirely different story. Second, "no interest" is the same kind of thing. I've never heard of an animal breeder have two dogs or horses or whatever that will refuse to approach one another after living together for who knows how long. Besides, as Kage has said repeatedly, realism does not always mean it's a good game mechanic.

[Fuzzbucket]

First, dragons aren't going extinct to my knowledge, so pandas are an entirely different story. Second, "no interest" is the same kind of thing. I've never heard of an animal breeder have two dogs or horses or whatever that will refuse to approach one another after living together for who knows how long. Besides, as Kage has said repeatedly, realism does not always mean it's a good game mechanic.

Sure they aren't going extinct - but the point was not to save a species - it was that the two pairs would NOT breed, no matter what. You said that in the end animals would give up and breed - and that is not always so. That was all.

 

And I wasn't talking about a game mechanic either - just saying that it is not true that a pair of animals will breed in the end. I still like dustpuppy's idea.

[KageSora]

And I wasn't talking about a game mechanic either - just saying that it is not true that a pair of animals will breed in the end. I still like dustpuppy's idea.

Right, I don't think anybody is arguing that there are never cases of "no means no forever" in real life.

 

We're arguing that just because it DOES happen in reality doesn't mean it has to be in the game.

 

By that idea of "it does happen in reality" then established pairs need to start refusing and dragons need to be given a chance of dying when you breed.

 

Additionally, how about some dragons just can't breed at all because they're infertile?

 

Those are all just as realistic as the occasional "no means no forever". And since no doesn't always mean no forever, then it's already straying from what happens in reality as it currently is.

 

I think the point was that realism is not always desirable in the game, not that the mechanism would be a good one to add. People arguing for the realism of some dragons always hating each other should also then be arguing for breeds to be able to refuse at any time, for us to not be able to abandon most of our dragon's eggs, for trying to kill dragons causing a game over... but I don't see anyone arguing for that! Fun game play > logic, although a balance is best.

Yeah, that was the point initially.

[LibbyLishly]

Sure they aren't going extinct - but the point was not to save a species - it was that the two pairs would NOT breed, no matter what. You said that in the end animals would give up and breed - and that is not always so. That was all.

The pandas, though, didn't 'refuse to go near each other'. They either 'showed no interest' or mated, 'but no [baby] was produced'. And the caretakers were able to try, over and over, until they gave up and looked for new mates. We already do the exact same thing in the game outside of refusals.

[Mondat]

By that idea of "it does happen in reality" then established pairs need to start refusing and dragons need to be given a chance of dying when you breed.

We would also need specific breeding rituals then.

 

 

"Soulpeace dances in front of White and shows off his colours. White isn't not impressed and leaves. Try again next week."

"Cavern Lurker calls but Mint doesn't come. Try again next week."

 

(I would like this much more than "refuse to go near each other" and just "no interest" by the way.)

[Hatsune Scratch]

I only have 2 ideas in my head:

 

1. Remove Refusals, but give a slightly higher chance to be unable to produce an egg, as we already have Fertility to help us with this, maybe even increase the chances of fertility a little as well?

 

2. Add a BSA to revert Refusals, and let it have a low cooldown, like say... 3-7 days?

[purplehaze]

I am still not in favor of completely removing refusals from the game, so I can't support this idea.

 

I would support a BSA that had a chance of reversing a refusal. I have no problem with being able to use that BSA repeatedly on the same pair. I would not want to see a cooldown as short as 3 - 7 days, though. That makes no sense to me as it is even shorter than the breeding cooldown. I think the cooldown should be at least a month and I would really prefer longer.

[JavaTigress]

We would also need specific breeding rituals then.

 

 

"Soulpeace dances in front of White and shows off his colours. White isn't not impressed and leaves. Try again next week."

"Cavern Lurker calls but Mint doesn't come. Try again next week."

 

(I would like this much more than "refuse to go near each other" and just "no interest" by the way.)

ACTUALLY... i would find this rather awsome.

 

Possibly too much work for everyone involved in making the dragons though, i am not sure.

[CNR4806]

2. Add a BSA to revert Refusals, and let it have a low cooldown, like say... 3-7 days?

What is the point of making a revert BSA when you give it an insanely-low cooldown?

 

The entire premise of all suggested revert BSAs given ultra-long cooldown or other severe limitations is that refusal is an integral part of breeding, and that refusals should have significant consequences. The proposed BSAs simply serve the purpose of reverting refusals on pairs that you really don't want to trouble yourself to replace, not to be spammed like when you have 200 reds to incubate eggs.

Edited June 3, 2014 by CNR4806

[Pixxelation]

Sure they aren't going extinct - but the point was not to save a species - it was that the two pairs would NOT breed, no matter what. You said that in the end animals would give up and breed - and that is not always so. That was all.

 

And I wasn't talking about a game mechanic either - just saying that it is not true that a pair of animals will breed in the end. I still like dustpuppy's idea.

As was stated, they weren't "refusing to go near each other", they were not showing interest and/or unsuccessfully mating. My point is that it is much liklier for them to attempt or show no interest, and if you keep trying, for them to attempt to breed.

 

~

 

@Hatsune: The first one is pretty much this idea, but I'm not putting in any changes in other breeding mechanics as TJ is the only one with true statistics and will be able to decide if anything needs to be changed should he choose to implement ether of these suggestions.

 

~

 

@CNR: Um, no, they really aren't. They are a small feature that could EASILY be removed or changed to stop being permanent without any consequences. I don't agree that they should have significant consequences. I don't even think they should be there in the first place.

Edited June 3, 2014 by PieMaster

[Windy]

I hate refusals so I support this idea. I'd love to have a way to revert refusals.

[Hatsune Scratch]

What is a point of making a revert BSA when you give it an insanely-low cooldown?

 

The entire premise of all suggested revert BSAs given ultra-long cooldown or other severe limitations is that refusal is an integral part of breeding, and that refusals should have significant consequences. The proposed BSAs simply serve the purpose of reverting refusals on pairs that you really don't want to trouble yourself to replace, not to be spammed like when you have 200 reds to incubate eggs.

So refusals are a consequence? Ok.

The reason why it should be a low cooldown instead of a high one is because you do not control whether its a refusal or not, and by your logic, the players are getting punished for no reason. Refusals are basically the pick of the draw, you have no idea if its gonna be a refusal or not, and that can suck if you get really unlucky. The reason why fighting games are the most competitive games you know is because its all skill, and if luck is involved in some way, its nothing that can ultimately put you on a handicap.

[cyradis4]

So refusals are a consequence? Ok.

The reason why it should be a low cooldown instead of a high one is because you do not control whether its a refusal or not, and by your logic, the players are getting punished for no reason. Refusals are basically the pick of the draw, you have no idea if its gonna be a refusal or not, and that can suck if you get really unlucky. The reason why fighting games are the most competitive games you know is because its all skill, and if luck is involved in some way, its nothing that can ultimately put you on a handicap.

Refusals do add something to the game: a random chance that you'll have to go find another mate, raise another dragon. Its an unusual feature that, provided it can be reversed for really hard to replace pairs, I feel adds uniqueness to the game.

 

I'm a big breeder. And 99% of the time, refusals are just an "aww hell, gotta go pick another CB / grab another from the Cave / breed another". Its only certain spectacular cases of really hard to replace dragons that I go all *flips tables and DC servers too*.

 

So the goal of the refusal reversal BSAs is to give people the option of reversing those really painful refusals while encouraging them to leave the easy to replace ones intact (and go get a new dragon instead).

 

For me, I don't even remember most of my refusals, I always get a couple when I breed dragons to new mates. But some I do. A 2nd gen Silver that's refused 3 second gen Ices so far (I've got the 4th attempt at a mate growing right now). A Gold that refused 2 GWs before liking one (it took me over 6 months to breed each new GW). A Holiday that refused 2 second gen Golds (but those were funny due to the RP of the Gold's holiday parent (Fail Wizard is his name), especially when a gold from the other CB I have was liked). A Magma that refused two GWs before finally accepting a mate.

 

That's what's behind the long cooldowns / limits on the BSAs: to keep the uniqueness and uses of refusals while giving users a way around the painful ones. And to give users a strong reason to not use it on every single refusal.

 

Cheers!

C4.

[KageSora]

"Unique" doesn't always mean "good". IMO, refusals add a FRUSTRATING "unique" feature, not an interesting one.

[cyradis4]

"Unique" doesn't always mean "good". IMO, refusals add a FRUSTRATING "unique" feature, not an interesting one.

Speak for yourself.

 

Its only the hard-to-replace ones that irritate me. Which is where the BSAs come in.

 

C4.

[KageSora]

Speak for yourself.

Same can be said for anybody arguing that the refusals should be kept in because they add something other than frustration.

 

You'll also notice the "IMO", indicating I was, in fact, speaking for myself.

Edited June 3, 2014 by KageSora

[CNR4806]

So refusals are a consequence? Ok.

The reason why it should be a low cooldown instead of a high one is because you do not control whether its a refusal or not, and by your logic, the players are getting punished for no reason. Refusals are basically the pick of the draw, you have no idea if its gonna be a refusal or not, and that can suck if you get really unlucky. The reason why fighting games are the most competitive games you know is because its all skill, and if luck is involved in some way, its nothing that can ultimately put you on a handicap.

If refusals aren't to remain as something significant, I honestly find coding a BSA to reverse it to be a complete waste of time that TJ can use to improve the cave in other ways, as well as adding petty frustration to EVERYONE playing the game because they will have to use the BSA to remove a condition that prevents breeding that is by-then objectively pointless.

 

It would be faster and simplier to just flat out nuke refusals if you want an easy mode. The BSA suggestions, at least the ones that are currently active, are for people who feel that refusals should remain as a significant part of the breeding game, but want to allow reversing the most frustrating ones.

 

@CNR: Um, no, they really aren't. They are a small feature that could EASILY be removed or changed to stop being permanent without any consequences. I don't agree that they should have significant consequences. I don't even think they should be there in the first place.

If you are actually reading, you shall notice that the bolded part of that post was referring to why the BSA suggestions, as they currently are, have severe limitations.

Edited June 3, 2014 by CNR4806

[JavaTigress]

If refusals aren't to remain as something significant, I honestly find coding a BSA to reverse it to be a complete waste of time that TJ can use to improve the cave in other ways, as well as adding petty frustration to EVERYONE playing the game because they will have to use the BSA to remove a condition that prevents breeding that is by-then objectively pointless.

 

It would be faster and simplier to just flat out nuke refusals if you want an easy mode. The BSA suggestions, at least the ones that are currently active, are for people who feel that refusals should remain as a significant part of the breeding game, but want to allow reversing the most frustrating ones.

I think the main thing is that most people feel like, it is UNLIKELY that TJ would completely nuke refusals.

 

Just my take on it.

 

I have to say that is the point of view I hold. I can't say as I like them, and I don't see the point of them myself, but TJ must have reasons for having included them. Given that, he is unlikely to do away with them entirely. THAT being said, if they aren't going to be going away because they are there for a reason, even if we as users don't see it, then an option to reverse the most annoying and difficult to replace ones would be nice. THAT is where the BSA ideas come in and I'd love to see one of those be implemented.

 

I think it is more a thing of people see that as a more likely option, rather than a better one.

[Starscream]

I would like to ask piemaster (in case I missed it) Why exactly do they feel that refusals must absolutely be removed. I'd like to see a bit more than "they should" or "because its frustrating" Why should it be removed, how it would affect game play. I am interested to see what is truly at the heart of the question.

 

Things change through-out the years, but the refusal is a very deep set game mechanic I cannot really see being changed. In order to change TJ's mind, you likely need to put forth a well thought out reason why it should not exist and why that change must be done for the betterment of the DC community while taking in consideration of how it can affect all game play aspects.

[LibbyLishly]

I would like to ask piemaster (in case I missed it) Why exactly do they feel that refusals must absolutely be removed. I'd like to see a bit more than  "they should" or "because its frustrating" Why should it be removed, how it would affect game play. I am interested to see what is truly at the heart of the question.

 

Things change through-out the years, but the refusal is a very deep set game mechanic I cannot really see being changed. In order to change TJ's mind, you likely need to put forth a well thought out reason why it should not exist and why that change must be done for the betterment of the DC community while taking in consideration of how it can affect all game play aspects.

I don't know about PieMaster's reasoning, but I can give my own reasons for wanting refusals removed.

 

First of all, I don't see refusals as an integral part of the game. To me, they feel like something that seemed like a good idea to TJ back when he started the game and that was just kind of left there even as other parts of the game changed and evolved.

 

I think the reasons why refuals should not exist have been well hashed over throughout the threads that are seeking to fix them:

 

1. It doesn't make sense from an animal breeder standpoint. As illustrated with the panda example, animals typically "show no interest" or mate, but unsuccessfully. These are options we already have. Furthermore, a breeder has recourse even if two animals do "refuse to go near each other" - some method of coaxing, artificial enhancers (if you read about what they do to get zoo animals "in the mood", it's kind of hysterical), or artificial insemination. You don't just have them refuse to go near each other once and NEVER TRY AGAIN.

 

2. It doesn't make sense from a human standpoint. People change their minds. The plot of about 1/3 of all chick flicks involves a couple who hated each other and then fall in love later. A lengthy cooldown makes far more sense than "I HATE YOU FOREVER AND EVER AMEN." If the game was actually going to be realistic about relationships, it would be established mates who would up and hate each other one day and never go back, and no one wants that to happen.

 

3. I don't really see how the game could be negatively impacted by removing refusals. Without them, there is still no guarantee that a pairing will breed the way you want or even produce an egg at all. I doubt the chances of successful egg-getting would even go up. You might encounter the usual "showed no interest" or "attempt to breed, but did not produce an egg" results, but you're always able to try and have that chance that maybe, just maybe, one of these days, they will breed that stupid egg you've been after for over a year (yes, it's a thing).

 

4. Finally, a game should always be open to change for the betterment of its mechanics and for the enhancement of the experience for the players. Some of us find the current refusal system so obscenely frustrating and, frankly, stupid, that it's not only a detriment to the game for us but possibly a reason to quit playing. It's not about just making it easier, though it WOULD make things easier - but if you have a problem with that, you should have a problem with the suggestions forum existing. To remove refusals would be to have the game make more sense, allowing failed breedings to happen, and positively affect the gaming experience for everyone. If refusals were to disappear with no announcement, but everyone just stopped getting them, would anyone legitimately be upset to only encounter the other 4 possible results to breeding? Would they be sitting there, saying, "Man, I really wish I'd get a refusal! I love the challenge of trying to find a mate that will actually work for a persnickety dragon"? I doubt it. Besides, sometimes you have to switch mates just because you've been getting "no interest" for too long, even with Fertility - or because the pair refused to breed true to the parent you need.

 

cyradis4 said that refusals are one of the things that makes DragonCave unique. KageSora pointed out that "unique" doesn't always mean "good". To me, this is one of the areas where DC is certainly unique, but not in a good way. A game shouldn't set out to frustrate its players with elements over which they have no control. That's why rare hunting isn't a legitimate comparison - with a bit of skill, the right equipment, and a commitment of time, you can always get to the point where you can catch rares (I suck at it, but that's because I don't have the time to put into it). Refusals are pure chance and basically just say, "Sucks to be you."

 

In the end, do I think that refusals "absolutely have to be removed"? No, if there's a BSA or a scroll action that will counteract a refusal and thus render refusals no longer permanent. But I see no point to the very existence of refusals, and thus far, no one has been able to show me a decent reason why they should exist. To me, the game has evolved beyond their legitimate existence.

Edited June 3, 2014 by LibbyLishly

[Starscream]

I am more interested in the OP's perspective.

[Red2111]

Instead of totally wiping out refusals, I think this thread has a better solution.

^ this

 

or having the refusal have a year CD, where chances are low, but still there, that the dragons will reconcile their differences and atleast tolerate eachother. so after the rejection CD period the message would give one of the following

 

- "the dragons decide to attempt to reconcile their feelings, but still refuse to go near one another" 50% chance

 

- "the dragons decide the can tolerate one another for the time being but no egg is produced" 30% chance

 

- "the dragons decide the can tolerate one another for the time being and produced an egg" 20% chance

 

 

 

or have rejections turned off on Valentines day, this wont increase the chances of an egg, and any rejected pairs will reject eachother any other day of the year; but for that one day Feb 14th, you can try to get an egg from them at the normal breeding ratios.

 

 

 

reguardless of how the rejection thing is handled, i do think that any paris that have rejected eachother in the past should have an increased chance of re-rejecting eachother in the future if they reconcile differences, and an increased chance of producing nothing (so a small chance of porducing an egg)

Edited June 3, 2014 by Red2111

[Amaterasu-sama]

Not that it would kill me not to have refusals, I'm one of those people who has had "irreplaceable" loses due to refusals but I'm still against this. Hey, two of my high maintenance dragons just rejected each other, big whoop. Life goes on. I don't see why the dragons have to be forced on to each other just to "make the game less frustrating", that IMO devalues the charm of the game from RP point of view.

Edited June 3, 2014 by Amaterasu-sama

[Amazon_warrior]

or having the refusal have a year CD, where chances are low, but still there, that the dragons will reconcile their differences and atleast tolerate eachother. so after the rejection CD period the message would give one of the following

 

- "the dragons decide to attempt to reconcile their feelings, but still refuse to go near one another" 50% chance

 

- "the dragons decide the can tolerate one another for the time being but no egg is produced" 30% chance

 

- "the dragons decide the can tolerate one another for the time being and produced an egg" 20% chance

 

 

 

or have rejections turned off on Valentines day, this wont increase the chances of an egg, and any rejected pairs will reject eachother any other day of the year; but for that one day Feb 14th, you can try to get an egg from them at the normal breeding ratios.

 

 

 

reguardless of how the rejection thing is handled, i do think that any paris that have rejected eachother in the past should have an increased chance of re-rejecting eachother in the future if they reconcile differences, and an increased chance of producing nothing (so a small chance of porducing an egg)

I quite like the year CD idea (less so the V-day idea, because Holidays are crammed enough as it is...). It's substantially long enough that for trivial refusals, it'd be less hassle by far to just arrange a new mate, but anything precious would probably be worth waiting a year for.