| 0 |
Subject: Sim. Sports HR -- Rule Change Notice
Posted by: Madman
- [21020124] Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 13:33
I have adjusted the minimum breeding cost of a horse to 25 points. Since there is a new overriding minimum, the minimum cost to claim a first time starter will also be raised to 25 points.
I am also adding an extra 10 points to claim a first time starter, and no longer distinguishing between CPU horses and player horses. In other words, the overriding minimum to now claim a 2 year old is 30 points, and to claim a 3 year old or older is 25 points.
Finally, I am adding 3 extra points to finishing first, second, or third in ANY race.
Rule one is actually a reintroduction of a prior rule and is necessary, as the current system is ripe (and realizing) widespread abuse.
Rule 2 will likely raise the typical furor but, let's be honest here, anyone that can't make up the difference with earning an extra 3 points for finishing top 3 in ANY race isn't trying very hard.
I am sorry for those that enjoy breeding the "low bargain" horses, but they are causing undue strain on the horse pool. To try and allow some first time starters to be run in claims, I needed to up the claim cost on them. I also need to remove the "player horse only" rule when concerning these claims, as race bidding to try and "smoke out" good CPU horses is also taking place. For those that like to claim first time starters, my advice is : if you can breed it for as cheap as you can claim it, breed it instead.
This rule is in place immediately.
--Mike
Looks like I got my 18 and 19 pointers in there, ASAP.
Also looks like the value of starter allowances just went up. Also looks like if you can get a horse "on a roll" in claimers finishing 1-2-3 repeatedly, you can smoke the system even more than before!
This penalizes horse experimentation, but will reward owners who know the game. |
| 1 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 2504849
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 14:17
|
This doesn't seem to be that sweeping of a change to me and I'm not sure I see the real benefit? Was there really that many horses running their first race being claimed and bred over? Or was it people claiming the first time runner period?
Still seems that the second race a horse is entered in they can still be claimed and bred over as before, or does first time runner mean any horse that is still a maiden?
As for increasing the bargain breeding to a 25pt min., that really isn't too dramatic of an increase. In Madman's example it would have cost an extra 7 and 6 BP's for each. Not much of a deterence I would think.
There must have been some widespread abuse going on, but I'm not sure what it was.
|
| 2 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 14:25
|
Ditto, StLCards. Whatever problem this is addressing, it's different than what the original rule proprosal was. Is more coming? I don't see the change on the MB or in the popup.
Toral
|
| 3 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 14:52
|
OK, found the MB thread.
Toral
|
| 4 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 16:53
|
You want to see the problem that this is attempting to fix?
Check out this stable
|
| 5 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 17:12
|
Does that say "1359" points earned this year?
Toral
|
| 6 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 17:13
|
Geez. This rule change has forced my hand. I'm entering my dirt cheap homebreds in Maiden Claimers FTO. There's almost no chance they will be claimed, and I'll have maximum odds for a win and for BP's.
Furthermore, they will be set up for a nice 2nd run, and maybe I can get a string of top 3 claim finishes with them, meaning I'll get BP rich quick.
Dang it, this is not the way I want to play the game.
|
| 7 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 17:15
|
Toral -- yes, that's what it says. That's the problem that Mike's been trying to address.
This is the same loophole that we talked about last summer. However, recent rule changes have turned that loophole into a gaping-wide black-hole. A number of players from influential tracks have gotten suckered into this.
Note: that's not a NET 1359 points. He's spent a few hundred points breeding new horses. Probably only netted 1,000 BP's this year.
|
| 8 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 17:20
|
He's entered 64 races since Jan. 1, averaging 9.14 races per week, or a 91.4% stall space utilization rate, thereby obviously racing horses RTG or even perhaps groggy.
He (or she) races his (her) horses every week, in MC or CLM races. He gets the bonus points for entering a newly created horse in MC's. Then gets super bonus points piled upon bonus points by entering the horse over and over again.
|
| 9 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 17:24
|
Scratch that. Upon further review, he's done less breeding than I thought. He's probably netted 1250 BPs. . .
|
| 10 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 17:28
|
Wow. I wonder if he works for Enron?....
And the new rule fixes this by...? I'm a little clueless here. I still haven't figured this scam out properly.
I've seen similarly-names horses in another stable too...he must have a few.
Toral
|
| 11 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 17:37
|
Hahaha. USED to work for Enron! :)
The new rule does NOT fix this. Personally, I think Mike is a little confused at what the real problems are with the sim right now. I think he's not getting good feedback, and half the feedback he IS getting is from people who want him to warp the sim in a way they can manipulate. He'll have to issue another rule change here soon, but I bet he'll wait a couple of weeks. He's a smart guy, I'm not questioning that. I just think he's a bit out of touch with what is going on right now.
____________________
The Scam:
1) acquire a horse, any horse.
2) breed a new 7 point homebred.
3) race it in a MC race, getting homebred, first time, and claim race bonuses.
4) immediately race it again and again as long as it is RTG or better. Now, you still get homebred and claim race bonuses, but you ALSO get the chance to pile up the super-bonus if you finish in the top 3 (i.e., your horse can pile up the bonus points in claim races).
5) repeat 4 until your horse comes up lame, at which time you breed over it again.
Mike's addressed step 2. However, as is obvious from the above description, this is a TINY part of the problem, IMO.
|
| 12 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 2504849
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 18:28
|
Holy #$$%#! And here I was feeling good about my 102 BP's earned for the year in my stlcards3 stable. I guess there is abuse going on.
I guess my feeble mind can only comprehend so much. So I get my 25BP minimum homebred, enter him first time out in a MC. Now if some beginner were to claim him, then I get 30BP's for it being claimed + claim pts. + FTO pts + whatever BP's I earn in the race? And if nobody claims him then I still get the FTO pts + Claim pts + whatever pts I get in the race and I am then free to continue steps 4 and then 5.
Eliminating the homebred pts. and raising the cost to breed a cheapie, should slow down the rate of BP accumulation, but not that much. Seems the super pts is where it is really at.
I had plans to enter my bargain 2yo babies into MC's FTO, but I saw those first MSW races and jumped right in. Guess I don't have the scam mentality down just yet. One of my best horses in all my stables has a 2nd, 1st, and 2nd in the last 3 races all claimers at the same track. Speeds were 43, 53, 53. My better horses that run in the low 90's in the mean time are coming in 7th and 8th. I need to get that claimer mentality working.
|
| 13 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 20:24
|
StlCards -- if you lose your FTO MC'er, you do NOT get the 30 BP's for it being claimed. Otherwise, you've got it right.
You and both need to get the claimer mentality going. I've got my stables chock full of 90-105 speed horses I'm pushing into an ever-shrinking pool of starter allowances. Meantime, I see these 45-55 speed horses pulling better ITM stats, as well as hundreds of BP's per race. Hmmm.
|
| 14 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 20:25
|
Oops. Meant to say "You and me both need to get the claimer mentality going" . . . :)
|
| 15 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 20:48
|
Not to mention me. Here I am trying to force a bunch of 1-allowance-winners into slots where they can pick up #2, when I should have been breeding over them to pick up "The Skidz".
I feel obligated now to try and figure out what a good solution would be, if only to forstall an endless stream of non-solutions. What about a rule that any points earned by a horse due to (1) being home-bred or to (2) being a maiden DO NOT roll over to successive races. Is that a solution? Is it programable-friendly?
Toral
|
| 16 | cab
Donor
ID: 471471321
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 21:47
|
These rules are totally befuddling me!...To be honest,i do not know the reasons why new rules are being introduced...At first i thought it was to stop..1) people claiming horses with a total disregard of how good the horse is,and 2)even worse, when a horse has had only one or two starts and therefore never,ever given a chance to show it's true colours...If you have a look at the last page of the auction,this is very evident..The amount of horses that have been bred over with numbers of 7*****(ie. newly introduced horses into the game,from stables just started)is absurd...
The first part(1) is in reference to horses like Jay theatre and prince beau...Horses that will never be any good in allowance races but earned(used to)a nice living in the claiming ranks...
That's where i see the problem....There are liteally hundreds of horses that will never see an itm finish that can be bred over....Why are people not claiming these types of horses if they want to breed??...
I liked one idea on the MB...Horses of a certain standard(say 70sp runners,and a cpu value minimum or something like that)cannot be claimed and any horse that has not run a certain amount(say 10) of races cannot be claimed...A far easier solution imo..But like i say,i am not really sure what the initial problem is...I may be way off base...
Madman...I assume you are aware that to get the bonuses from maiden claiming races(No.3 in your post above)the horse has to finish in the first three?...And to keep accumulating the bonuses they have to continue to finish itm...You do not get bonus BP for simply running a homebred in a maden claim race FTO...
The solutions implemented wil not stop the stable mentioned...He has his stable full,so when a horse breaks down he will simply breed over it...He doesn't need to claim any more horses...It's going to cost him slightly more to breed them but he will get the bp back because of the increased bp for running itm...In fact it will probably make it easier for him...There is slightly less chance that any of his horses will get claimed now...
Will the extra bp cost stop people claiming FTS'ers...I doubt it very much,going on my experience...The 2 horses i put in claim races(cheapies) got claimed... One cost the new owner 15bp and the other cost 25bp...They could have bred them for less...
Anyhow...i better go enter my horses!...Mooralay variety is in the fray this week,trying to keep the roll going!
|
| 17 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 22:55
|
cab -- yeah, top 3 for MC FTO bonus, but only top 5 for homebred bonus.
At any rate, that doesn't deter the value of the Scam strategy. Sure, some horses won't always get the bonus. But some will.
Actually, all it really takes is ONE winner!
Consider Showboat stables, and one of his better horses this year -- Groovey Mike Va(gb) -- 56044.
1257 -- first race. 4th in MC race. 9 pts.
1264 -- second race. 4th again in MC. 11 points.
1271 -- won MC. worth 15+2+10+7=34 + 11 from 1264 - 45 point performance.
1278 -- 2nd, but not same track. worth 12+5=17. BUT, you need to add the 45 from the previous week, so that run was worth 62.
1292 -- Win! Worth 15+7=22 + 62 = 84.
1299 -- Win! Worth 15+7=22 + 84 = 106.
That horse just got you 106+84+62+45+11+9=317 points in 7 weeks.
With 10 stable slots doing this same thing, you're bound to get a bit lucky like this eventually with someone.
|
| 18 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 22:57
|
And notice that under the NEW rules, he'd have earned 338 points, not 317!!!
|
| 19 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 10372222
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 23:24
|
He would earn more pts? Guess this is not the fix afterall. I think what Mike is really trying to do is to reduce the number of horses being bred each week so he doesn't have to come up with so many new horses, something he said takes a lot of effort. I'm not sure what the answer is. Best to try this new implementation for awhile, make an assessment of its impact, and then formulate a new strategy in my mind.
|
| 20 | cab
Donor
ID: 471471321
Tue, Feb 19, 2002, 23:35
|
"I liked one idea on the MB...Horses of a certain standard(say 70sp runners,and a cpu value minimum or something like that)cannot be claimed and any horse that has not run a certain amount(say 10) of races cannot be claimed...A far easier solution imo..But like i say,i am not really sure what the initial problem is...I may be way off base..."
This should read "cannot be bred over".. not- "cannot be claimed"...
That is exactly my plan with Mooralay variety,Madman(and others btw...I have 5 or 6 horses who will be running for bonuses next time out)...Am i employing a "scam strategy"?...The way i see it,I am getting the best value for money from my horse, who is never going to make it out of the claiming ranks and would probably be the first horse i would breed over in that stable...The obvious abuse of the horses from his stable are a concern i guess...But as many have said...They are numbers on a computer and you run your own stable as you see fit...I dunno...The focus of the problem has changed hasn't it?..
|
| 21 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 01:21
|
So, what’s all the “hulla-ba-loo?”
So, what’s going on with Claimers? What’s all the Hulla-Ba-Loo about? I’ve read lots of opinions about things, but not much evidence. So, here’s the scoop.
I took data from all 3,289 claimers available in week 1306, and cross-referenced those with the information on the 750 horses that were eventually claimed. What I found was somewhat unexpected.
Horses that were put up for bids in races with tags under $2,000 had a 42.4% chance of getting claimed – 108 claims for 255 horses. Horses between $2K and $5,001 had a 26.7% chance of getting claimed (255/954). The percentage of successful claims continued to drop to 19.3%, 20.2%, 18.2%, 17.9%, 16.4% for horses in the following ranges: up to 10K, to 15K, to 25K to 50K, above 50K. The overall claim% was 22.8%; unfortunately, I don’t know if this is higher or lower than previous levels. However, I do know that the number of claim horses has been roughly constant relative to the number of tracks in the sim. This has been true for the 6 months I’ve been tracking this information.
Back to the issue at hand: horses up for 2K or under tags ARE getting picked up very frequently.
However, newly created horses are NOT any different than others. For example, 14/33 unraced horses up for a 2K or under tag got claimed – 42.4% -- the SAME percentage as typical 2K or under horses. Actually, horses with 1-5 races were claimed at LOWER frequencies than first time starters – 37.3% to 41.2%.
If you break down unraced or lightly raced horse statistics overall in the claimers, you get the same pattern – lightly raced horses are slightly UNDER claimed.
With that said, I think some things in the sim have changed for the worse lately. One of these items is likely the percentage of horses claimed – 22.8% this week was perhaps lower in previous weeks.
PROBLEM #1: TIGHT CLAIMING RANKS:
Didn’t I just say the relative size of the claiming pool vis-à-vis the sim was basically constant lately? Ah, yes. But the key is that sim DEMAND for horses probably has not been constant.
Why do I say this? In the mid to late 1100’s, roughly 150 *Computer horses were up for claiming each and every week. This week, that number had shrunk to 62, of which 40 were claimed.
Next, consider that the sim is a dynamic environment, adding new players and dropping old players continuously. Each time a new owner enters the game, he/she has 5 empty stall slots that most owners try to fill. Where must these horses come from? Answer: the *Computer horses that are up for claimers, or special gift *Computer horses that occasionally are part of contests.
If the sim is currently adding 40 horses per week to the active duty non-CPU pool, then this basically means that 8 new stables could be added each week AND completely filled with horses. If there are currently 1,000 active stables (just a guess), then this means the sim can only expand at a rate of about 0.8% per week, or roughly 41 new stables per year. Given that the race track quantity has increased by roughly 10% in just the last few months (from 74 to 82 from week 1150 to now), I am guessing that the sim is adding more new stables at a rate faster than the sim is adding horses to the active pool.
And yes, I am perfectly aware that each new stable technically adds 5 new horses to the horse pool. The problem, however, is that if you look at it from that perspective, each new stable adds 10 new horses to the demand side of the ledger, while only supplying 5. Thus the simplified logic I stated before appears to be relevant – each new stable adds a demand for up to 5 horses. The only exception would be those relatively rare conscientious owners who, when the dissolve their stables, put all their horses up for auction. In that case, the dissolved stable would indeed add a net supply of 5 horses. Since this activity is rare, I won’t discuss it further since it likely only mitigates my concerns rather than obviates them.
Thus, what the sim is experiencing right now is simply a shortage of horses.
SOLUTION: Allow users to more freely breed horses from scratch WITHOUT requiring an ID number. Each week, Mike can keep track of supply/demand factors, and can offer a certain number of ID numbers up for sale.
PROBLEM #2: INEFFICIENT CLAIMING:
Pent up demand for horses is exacerbated by the difficulty people have acquiring quality horses in the claiming ranks. Because it is virtually impossible to know how many competing bids are out there on a specific horse, claiming quality horses can and is becoming an ever-increasingly difficult task.
This forces trainers who might otherwise simply acquire a claiming horse into a situation where they have to claim / buy a really lousy horse and breed over it simply to acquire a viable racer. Although this activity is not bad, per se, this is a problem that is making it increasingly difficult to run an honest claiming stable. Furthermore, it invites the unrealistic behavior of people purposely buying low-tag claimers that they think no one else has bid on . . . and doing this for no other purpose than to simply breed over the horse.
SOLUTION: This is a tougher issue. I’d like to see some sort of tally of claiming bids per horse. That might be a good start. Any solution I can think of here, however, would require some significant programming. I think we can live with this problem for a bit longer, as long as the other problems are solved. This is a longer-run issue that should be addressed at some point, however.
PROBLEM #3: BREED POINT INFLATION:
Recent changes in the sim have made it possible for a single horse to acquire 300+ BP’s in a month (or more), and for stables to acquire 1000’s of BP’s per month as a whole. Furthermore, there will be an increasing tension between the fact that the number of progeny from each sire is capped in any given week and the fact that more and more people can afford horses. We are quickly approaching the time when so many people will have so many breed points that many people will want to breed the best sires in any given week, many people will have the resources to do so, but simply will not be able to because they won’t be able to spend the time in front of their computer, hoping that they will be the first to click after a sire becomes available.
What I am trying to say here is that the new breed point rules, coupled with the new breeding rules, is a mix for longer-term ugliness. Previously, extremely high priced sires at least accomplished one good thing – it took out of the system a ton of breed points. By capping the price of the best sires, and simultaneously making it exponentially easier to acquire breed points, it is only a matter of time before these goals are in conflict.
SOLUTION, part 1: Although there are many things about the new breeding system I like, the price cap of 500 for sires should be removed. For those sires that are instantaneously used each week, the price should continue to climb.
More importantly, something has to be done to curb the ease with which breed points can be accumulated in the game. The gap between claiming ranks and others is starting to become way too large. Furthermore, these rules encourage people to engage in behavior that is quite unrealistic – like racing horses RTG week after week.
SOLUTION, part 2: To curb this, two things should be done. First, increase the realism of horse fatigue. If horses race in back to back weeks, they should almost never come back “Ready to Go”. Racing 4 times in 5 weeks should result in a horse coming up lame with a very high frequency. Currently, it appears that this sort of designation is almost purely random, and has nothing to do with trainer activity. For the cause of realism AND to prevent abuse of the current point system, this really needs to be changed.
Secondly, the current exponential accumulation of breed points should either be discontinued, or adapted to prevent rampant abuse. Perhaps limiting the accumulation of previous breed points to only those earned by the race itself by excluding the same-track bonus, maiden-claim bonus, homebred bonus, etc.
More to the point, however, I would suggest that the entire BP system be simplified. Someone once asked me to re-program the SSS to tabulate BP’s accumulated by horses. This is virtually impossible under the current system. The fact of the matter is that no user can independently verify how many points their horses should have won, or even how many points their horses will win for the various races they may enter. There is really no reason for this that I can see. One solution for this would be to change the entry procedures so that sim would tell users how many points their horse might win if they enter it in a given race. That would obviously take some work, however. The simpler solution is to re-do the rule structure.
Comments/suggestions/Corrections? Going to post this to the main MB.
cab I'm going to breed some 25 point homebreds and start racing them every week if he doesn't change this. I may even start up some new stables and work this strategy to the bone to force him to change. The more I think about all this, the more I think all of this is like Campaign Finance Reform -- the solution seems obvious, but deep down, no proposed "solution" actually fixes anything. The only real solution would be to make fundamental reform.
|
| 22 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 03:29
|
A "Claim Bandit"'s opinion of these newest changes:
I think he is trying to help us.
If you breed a horse for about 15 ticker points, it will cost you the minimum 25 BPs. But we now have a "free pass" on that first race to put him in as cheap as possible. Who is gonna pay 25 BPs to claim a horse that looks like a 15 pointer?
Don't ask where I got this quote from. I just hope he doesn't find this forum!
|
| 23 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 03:31
|
BTW, if you see a horse with "CB" in the name, that's a "Claim Bandit" horse designed to be abused and to abuse the system.
|
| 24 | cab
Donor
ID: 471471321
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 05:16
|
"Why do I say this? In the mid to late 1100’s, roughly 150 *Computer horses were up for claiming each and every week. This week, that number had shrunk to 62, of which 40 were claimed".
I am assuming this is because there are less claiming races?...If there are less cpu horses and there is the same amount of claim races available,you would have to assume that there are more fields which have four runners or more?...and therefore equal,or more horses are available for claiming...Of course,i guess if there more horses going into claim races from existing stables,they are going to want to claim another to fill that empty spot,along with new stables trying to claim horses...
question 1...Should the auction horses be factored into all this somehow?....There are,at a guess,200-300 horses put up for sale each week...
Question 2...I assume the stats for 2k and under tags should really be 2k only or 2.5k or under?...There are no races that i have seen than run for less than 2k...
I like all those ideas as solutions...Particulary the increase of bp price for the top quality sires...All the other sires prices are supposedly driven by supply/demand(although i have never noticed much evidence of this)so why should the big boys be capped!...The ability to buy these sires using credits makes this a bit difficult though...How many times have you seen on the MB things like "i clicked on the sire as soon as it become available and i missed out"..
|
| 25 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 08:58
|
What a mess! The Claim Bandits must be extirpated!
I guess the rational place to start is with comments on Madman's Solutions (unfortunately I'll only be able to do a bit at a time):
I guess I like solution 3 (both parts) to problem 2 best. I would qualify the fatigue solution by specifying that it apply to 2- and 3-year-olds only. It is homebreds that are being abused for BP at the moment and they have to start out as 2- or 3- year olds. Further, the game is set so that older horses (and 3-year-olds after July 1) run at "double time" -- 1 week sim = two weeks real life. There is no reason a fit horse can't run every two weeks, as a general rule. If you cut back on older horses' running, some players won't have their desires level of "action", and will create new stables, thereby exacerbating the horse demand problem.
"If horses race in back to back weeks, they should almost never come back “Ready to Go”. Racing 4 times in 5 weeks should result in a horse coming up lame with a very high frequency." Yes. I would support even more drastic solutions -- e.g. a 3-year-old who races 4 times in 5 weeks will be vet-listed, and can neither be raced, auctioned, or bred over. Is the 4-in-5-weeks thing too hard to remember or track?
And the exponential accumulation of breed points --- yes, like I said in 15. Thinking it over now, the whole roll-over idea should probably be scrapped. What was its purpose, anyway? According to the preamble to the rule, "To ensure the fairness of credits vs. breeding points, as well as to ensure the place of lower class horses in the game,. Laff. Well, it sure has ensured the place of lower-class horses in the game! Either they get abused, or bred over. And obviously it hasn't led to more fairness in BP accumulation. Just scrap it.
Toral
|
| 26 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 2504849
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 11:11
|
I will try to look at this in more depth later, but a quick comment about fatigue. I favor the vet listed idea, but I don't think it should be a set number. It should be based on things like stamina of horse, which side of RTG are they on (there are two RTG's, next to sharp and next to little groggy, and whatever other factors like running at 100% etc. Then some horses could maybe run 3 races while others might only be able to handle back to back races, etc. If the number were set like 4 in 5, then bye bye horse after the 4th in a row. If the number was variable, then it would be harder to figure out when the vet listing would occur. Mis-judge it and you lock one of your stable slots.
Prior to any fundamental reform in the SIM, I think identifying the objectives of the game would be in order. Obviously one idea is to keep it as realistic as possible, but to incorporate things (like accelerated recovery after a race) to keep it fast paced enough to hold people's interest. Too realistic and we wait 10 months or so for a horse to be born and spend a few hours to watch our horses run.
Some of the problems probably go hand in hand and the real solution may be to incorporate a mix of many factors, ie the sim $$ as well. It would also be nice if some of these potential solutions from various people could be tested prior to implementation to find potential pitfalls.
|
| 27 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 13:00
|
Because I've posted too much here lately already :), I'll try to be brief (haha)
1) I'm not sure WHY there are a lot fewer *Computer horses. I think its because the least popular claiming races are drying up, and being replaced with bid races. Lots more 50K and up claim races (from bidding) and lots fewer restricted lower-tag races. People are willing to put their horses up for 50K tags, whereas they weren't as willing to put them up for 5K tags.
2) No, auction horses don't affect the supply/demand positively. Actually, they can hurt the situation! Why? Think of it like this -- each stable in the game has a "horse demand" of between 9 and 10 horse ID's. However, they also want those ID's to be as high a quality as possible. You start with 5 ID's. This means that each new player you add brings a net deficit of 4-5 ID's to the game.
Auctions don't help this. Successful auctions just send a horse from one stable to another. As long as that original stable still WANTS a horse, this doesn't affect the OVERALL supply/demand.
Obviously, if the stable is going out of business and dumps his horses, that's GREAT for the sim. But most don't do that.
On the flip side, the *Computer wins some auction bids. This means that the horse pool can SHRINK because of the auction. This is happening with less and less frequency (probably because of the excessive demand vis a vis supply), but it still puts the wrong sort of pressure on the situation. Individual people are simply acting to maximize their stable's performance. They don't necessarily act in a way that will benefit the game as a whole. Individual stables may dump a 25 speed horse that the *Computer wins at auction. That stable is better off. But the game has one less ID to work with.
(In theory, everyone who wanted to breed would be able to find that 25 speed horse, bid on it, and acquire it. However, all that takes time. Furthermore, the auction interface is cumbersome leaving many ways the "efficient" solution may not be reached before the auction closes. The fact that many trainers are simply acquiring claim horses to breed over says something about how "efficient" the auction is at re-distributing horses.)
3) Yeah, good point about 2K races. I just arbitrarily picked a point. It turns out this is where the claim bandits are living. I didn't know that at the time.
4) Toral -- yeah, I agree about the reasons for the exponential BP rule.
I'll yield the floor :).
|
| 28 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 2504849
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 13:08
|
Claim Bandits, secret message boards? wow!
|
| 29 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 15:06
|
And who said Stallworld had a monopoly on scandals? :)
Where there are games, there are potential abusers of games.
|
| 30 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 18:22
|
I must admit that I am extremely disturbed by Mike's reaction about not caring about the exploitation of loopholes. He is admitting that he doesn't care about what some of the perpetrators have admitted on the MB (euan e.g.) is unethical behaviour. And the CBs are now able to taunt the honest players with Mike's statement that it's all allright by him.
Perhaps even more ominous in Mike's strange post today is that there is no indication of an immediate intention to *CLOSE* the loophole.
Still, I'm going to attempt to calm down, in the spirit of Madman's post in the "Everyone! Printers Ready!" thread. I should wait till the steam stops coming out of my ears anyway.
I'm also disturbed about the knowledge of this by two top SRF people.
Toral
|
| 31 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 2504849
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 19:02
|
Initially I was upset about this whole fiasco, and certainly do not agree with what is being done, but scanning over the CB message boards with an open mind I really didn't see anything to nefarious. I saw a group of people having a lot of fun exploiting their loophole. Now they are caught with their hands in the cookie jar. I don't think they set out to destroy claim races or to cause hardships on Mike, I think those were more of an unforseen nature.
Exploiting loopholes is a part of life and has even been here in Rotoguru with roster sampling. The key is that it has been detected and now it needs to be closed ASAP. I have to believe that Mike's message is an attempt to maintain civility and. Imagine if he had said these people were abusing the system and he took offense? Tar and Feather'd perhaps?
I would hope that changes are forthcoming and that Mike is careful in deciding what to do to "fix" it. His attempt to fix something he viewed as a problem resulted in this bigger (more vocal anyway) problem. I imagine his mailbox runneth over with "suggestions" as to how to fix it, each one probably being different.
So, in the meantime my horses hopefully draw into their races, and I will refrain from posting in the maim MB of the SIM, because which one would I post in anyway?
Hopefully this gets fixed soon, and as I said I disagree with the people involved in CB, but I'm sure most are decent people with good intentions that got carried away. I had similar discussions with someone buying T races. A lot of people have the attitude of "it's within the rules" while the majority of us like to think about "the spirit of the game". Hopefully this was caught soon enough and doesn't negatively impact the sim long term.
|
| 32 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 22:26
|
Toral -- yeah, I tried to be civil, and then Nexis goes and shoots his mouth of at me and I blow up. Aargh.
---------------
General:
Actually my interpretation of Mike's message wasn't necessarily that he didn't care. My reaction was that he was probably responding to some hateful emails he had received that questioned his motives.
Furthermore, he acknowledged that his rule changes are sometimes bogus and create loopholes and when that happens, things should be fixed.
Thus, I'm betting changes WILL be coming, but that he needs some time to figure out how to fix this situation properly. And, he's probably very busy with his own life, so I wouldn't be surprised if things remain status quo for a couple of weeks.
StlCards -- yeah, I agree in general, but this notion of racing horses week after week after week without resting crosses the line. Everyone knows that you can do that. But it is totally against the spirit of the sim. That's the actions that I gripe about with the Claim Bandits. They saw a profitable point making opportunity -- the same opportunity that cab is using. Fine.
But that wasn't enough for them. They had to go all out and put in claims every week to cover horses they lose -- the same horses that they are racing every week and breeding over every time anything would slow them down for even a week. That messes with the sim directly as well as implicitly, and that bugs me.
|
| 33 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 22:42
|
Actually since the time I posted I have sent an e-mail to Mike, in which I recommended the rollover and fatigue changes, and said that I was disappointed that he did not seem to care about the CB actions, and already have received a very friendly reply. He does care. And he doesn't approve. But he accepts that people will exploit things within the rules, and takes responsibility himself for leaving them open. (I think stlcards is prob right that he also doesn't want to do anything that would escalate current tensions). He specifically said he will be looking into the claimers point rollover. But I get the feeling it may not be soon. As you say, he has other things to do.
Toral
|
| 34 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 10372222
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 22:57
|
Madman I totally agree with you that what they did is just plain wrong! I try to look for the bright things, like maybe they got caught up in the moment, they are sorry, etc., but really what I find with this sort of person is that they don't have a clue. Have you seen one appologetic message anywhere? Not me. They would rather be confrontational. I guess that is the nature of the beast. Seems you find these people everywhere. The individual I dealt with regarding the T races was the same way, an in your face response.
The thing that makes this SIM special is that it really is more than a game. But apparently not to everyone. Heck, there aren't even any prizes to win. The prize is your ability to manage your stable effectively. Racking up 5,000 BP's in a scam sort of way, I just don't get it. Is that really fun?
I remember Mike saying he had some hectic times ahead, apparently something that anyone in the insurance business would know about. Hopefully he gets it fixed soon.
|
| 35 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 23:33
|
StL -- yep. I thought I was being "level headed" and fair in my first post on the boards, and then Nexis has to go out and deny even the most egregious complaint that I had. If they would just admit they got carried away, I'd have little problem with what they did. I perfectly understand being competitive, and how things can morph out of control. It's this obnoxious -- "No, we didn't do anything, and, besides, everyone else is as bad as us!" response that gets my blood boiling.
That's why Clinton aggravated me to no end, but that's another topic.
_________________________
Toral You kidding me? Maybe you can post what you wrote to get a response? I haven't heard word boo since my email. Which WAS shorter than the diatribe I gave above.
At any rate, that's pretty cool.
|
| 36 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Wed, Feb 20, 2002, 23:36
|
"Dear Mike,
The present loophole can be cured by two steps:
1. Ending the rollover (accumulation of bonus points for claiming) immediately. It is this which allows the ridiculous piling up of BPs. It has certainly not achieved the goals you set out for it. If you feel that claim races need some more BPs to keep the claiming ranks healthy, a straight addition to the points for a 1-2-3-4-5- (or 1-2-3) finish could substitute.
2. More realistic 3-year-old fatigue rules. The Claim Bandits run up their points by running their cheap-breds until they are lame and then breeding over them. This is a problem (3-year-old fatigue) that needs to be dealt with anyway. You would know how to program this. If suitable programming will take a long time, perhaps some temporary (or permanent) rule could be set up that a 3-year-old who runs "too much" (say, 3 times in 4 weeks, or 4 times in 5 weeks) will be vet-listed -- dead weight in stable. This would patch a bit of the loophole.
I must say that I regret your statement that you have no problem with the Claim Bandits' actions. I realize of course that it's your game. But to be what you said is tantamount to saying that the spirit of the game is unimportant -- it is an open invitation to the unethical.
That's just my view, of course. What is clear to me is that if you do take the position you do, then it is essential that you plug up loopholes that are found forthwith. Otherwise you implicitly condone the perverse incentives and unrealistic and detrimental-to-the-game activities that do come to light.
Thanx for running the sim."
|
| 37 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Thu, Feb 21, 2002, 00:38
|
More succinct than I. Maybe that's the key :)
Bad news -- I understand via kingab via zgreat that the point is not yet finalized. Some people arguing the point have asked for "quantitative data" to support the argument about what they are doing.
Any help or ideas on what would constitute "quantitative data" would be appreciated.
|
| 38 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Feb 21, 2002, 00:56
|
Mystery to me. Data about over-running their horses? About piling up incredible amounts of BP?
If nothing else is done, it will be interesting to see how many people take the attitude, "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em". Plus there will be the people who, having heard of the idea, think it's fine and are smart enough not to advertise their existence on message boards or brand their horses with "We Are Part Of The Scam" names. Now there are 35 stables listed on the CB site as "members", plus an unknown number of people perhaps from Vermont, plus who knows what else. What if 350 stables start accumulating 6000 BPs a year? 1000? Can a sim so divided against itself about what is permissible stand?
Toral
|
| 39 | Madman
ID: 21020124
Thu, Feb 21, 2002, 02:23
|
Here's what I did . . . I took all the races from Showboat stables post 1215, and exported them to Excel.
In Excel, I wrote some custom functions and things, and then went through race by race (with help from the SSS ID searches) and tallied all the points that Showboat earned and how he earned them. Well, mostly. I only found 1314 points.
What I found was interesting. Only 288 of the points were accumulated because of the new "accumulate BPs from previous races" rule. Hmmm. I just said ONLY 288 points in 7 weeks! hahaha. Man alive.
Any way . . . The remaining 1100 points came because of the "old" claiming rules. The rest of this is just estimated: about 300-400 of those points came from the Maiden Claimer or FIRST TIME starter bonus rules. This means that EVEN IF ALL MC and CUMULATIVE bonuses were taken out, he still would have grossed at least 600 BPs (being conservative)!!!
Now, under the old rules, he did about 20 breedings in the past 7 weeks (again, estimated). That was only 100-120 points.
Now, that will be 400 points. Which means he still would have netted a reasonably sweet 600 points -- STRIPPED OF ALL BONUS OPTIONS!!!
I therefore conclude that was has to happen is some sort of fatigue-model reform. Tinkering with bonuses is not the issue. The issue is that he has 9 stable stalls running a race EVERY WEEK! That has to be stopped.
In addition to a fatigue based rule, I think Mike will have to institute a 2-3 week waiting period before you can race a new homebred.
And I'm hoping he'll figure out a way to do my "time trial" idea, so that you won't just totally twiddle your thumbs waiting for your new homebred to get race-ready.
|
| 40 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 10372222
Thu, Feb 21, 2002, 02:49
|
Prior to gathering quantitative data, there would have to be some hypotheses about what they are doing. Part of the stats would probably have to include whether the horses were Sharp, RTG, Layoff, etc. If I understand this correctly it is a multi-faceted problem.
The major question seems more moral than anything. Is the behaviour of CB "in keeping" with the spirit of the sim. If they are not entering their horses in a realistic manner, and that manner is statistically significant from the rest of the sim, then I think point proven.
What constitutes realism in a virtual environment? Good question. Certainly abusive running patterns. That could be proven by a signifiantly different # of inuries. Possibly injuries per race. Also drain on the horse pool (something that Mike might be interested in). It might also be interesting to see how many if any quality horses were bred and moved via the auction as I've seen suggested. Effect on claiming races might be a place to look too. They claim every horse they elinate is of poor quality. I wonder how true that is, especially if the horse is claimed in a 2nd or 3d race (since they say they didn't take FTO horses) and then raced into the ground. A comparison between a "typical" 2nd or 3d claim horse that is left to develop naturally vs a CB horse in terms of wins, SP, etc. My guess would be some of the naturally developed ones would go on to good things while none of the CB ones would. I'm not sure it even warrants a reply about quantitative numbers. The inordinate amount of BP's speaks volumes by themselves.
|
| 41 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 10372222
Thu, Feb 21, 2002, 03:01
|
Without giving it exhaustive thought, I think at first glance the "vet-listed" or "fatigue" rule where you had a stall "locked" for a period of time would help. Again, to test that would require data on the conditions of the horses before and/or after the races were run. If there was not a high number of injuries or lay offs, (possibly certain sire, DS, DDS, combinations are less sucesptible?), then there would definitely need to be a new model dictating conditions developed. That model would have to include #races/period x or something. Could be a harsh penalty for a newbie to the game, but if it was coded to be only for the most extreme circumstances it might still not be enough to curb the practice.
|
| 42 | StLCards
Sustainer
ID: 10372222
Thu, Feb 21, 2002, 03:22
|
There may be some other options as well.
Two major concepts, 1) limit the ability of a horse to run "abusive" patterns of races, 2) create a severe penalty for stables that engage in "abusive" patterns.
Definition of "abusive" is a real key. Besides a hardfast rule of a 2 or 3 yo only being able to enter every 3d week or something, you could impose a new method of drawing in to a race. If your horse ran the week prior, then his chance of drawing into a race would go down, two weeks prior odds are down but not as much.
New breeding rules about how soon you can breed over a horse could help too. If you breed a horse you must race them in X number of races or own them for x number of weeks, prior to breeding over. You already have to have a certain number of races before using a mare in breeding. If you claim a horse you must run him in x number of races prior to breeding (eliminating). Just some more ideas, will have to think more later. Getting tired now.
|
| 43 | Toral
Sustainer
ID: 2111201313
Thu, Feb 21, 2002, 07:27
|
Superb work, Madman. Shows the immense value of actually being able to check things out rather than rely on subjective impressions like I did. A good humility-builder for me -- here I thot the roll-over was at the root of the problem and Mike's reform would do something -- and it turns out his reform "saves" almost exactly as many points as eliminating the roll-overs would have.
The only optimistic thing I see this morning is that horse abuse is sim-wrong and so better fatigue rules might get some support. As opposed to BP rules, which seem inherently "value-neutral", prone to the argument, "Well, why shouldn't we make best use of whatever BP formula is in place?"
Toral
|
|
|
|
Post a reply to this message: (But first, how about checking out this sponsor?)
|
|