Increase the number of horses per member and level.
I honestly won't feel this pain until I get my new horses registered on the mainsite(which I'm aiming for end of the year because horse token are expensive and I'm horrible at keeping track of my own record)
I currently only have 1 high level eventer(thank goodness) and a few high level jumpers which is honestly expected in that case, however when I look at my chart and see how many of my horses will reach CCI**** or Grand Prix or <enter high level for other disciplines> it's going to add up, and also be expensive as well. I currently have 19 show jumpers, 14 eventers, 8 hunters(field hunters included), and 11 in dressage(classical dressage included). It's not hitting my hard yet but it's because all my horses are spaced out right now, some are at their max level or closing in to their max level or aren't even there yet.
In general I feel like if you space out how many you want to enter at a time you should be fine, I know most shows make it difficult because they don't host up the the highest level so horses have to compete in a lower level which would screw up your system. But the budget for shows is actually killing me, I know most people can EASILY make a pretty penny with the winnings of a show but I surely don't since I currently only have small herds of horses go into shows as of now. I am not even the slightest prepared for when I have to start planning out who goes into what show x.x
Now for general experience :p
On a small community(I can't remember what forum) there was a show that allowed unlimited entries in it per member, I believe I took advantage of that and basically all my horses placed close enough to one another that it was completely unfair. When you look at how popular some stables are with a lot of horses, that compete in the same general discipline, if all 59 of my horses were show jumpers and on the same level(let's just say puddle) I'm pretty sure my horses would place commonly in the top 6(I highly doubt it) and I'd have majority of the winnings of it all too.
This was my worse example but I swear I hope I make sense
Lusitanos are also perfect for Working Equitation. I'm hoping to add a few at some point in the near future to compete in that discipline.
I had the exact same thought.
Just wanted to throw out there, the cap on horses entered helps also with members who do not have as many horses entered. If you have 50 horses entered into level 1 alone and most members have 6-7. The chances of others placing is quite slim and in return, their horses are not earning points or money prizes. We had this problem on the old forum in the Eventing Society. Offaly and I decided to put a cap on how many horses can be entered into each level because some members were placing very high in most classes and others who entered less horses had a very slim chance against those who entered 30-40 horses into that level. It seemed like it was completely unfair. I think the cap is very fair. Leasing and considering other disciplines that are similar are very good options and I highly recommend that over no cap or an increased cap to keep it fun and fair for every member
Not answering repeatedly to slam your idea that we add more entries, but just because I'm a huge nerd and genuinely like talking about this shit.
On Equus all classes have 10 to 14 horses (filled with phantoms to hit 10, and then at 14 max before they're split).
5 entries per member per level wasn't just a number we pulled out of thin air - it's half of the minimum class size.
This is important because shows on Equus are weighted to make sure that members don't lose stupid amounts of money trying to enter them on a regular basis!
Each entry fee is 7.5% of the total winnings for the class, so lets use lvl1 as an example.
If you found a nice quiet discipline you could enter 10 horses in lvl1. This would cost you $75 per horse in fees ($750 total) and you'd be guaranteed to take home 1k for a tidy $250 profit, as well as getting all 40 (10+8+7+6+5+4) points for your horses.
Sounds... unfair? We thought so too :D
Even more so when you consider that the same thing at lvl10 is 7.5k in fees, and 2.5k in pure profit every time you filled a class, and there are tons of quiet enough disciplines where you could do this every show.
So, 5 horses per member per class. You can half-fill a class on your own, which gives you a decent chance at getting the goodies without winning being assured.
If anyone finds this nerdery interesting then omg hit me up holmes this is what my brain is maddeee offfff.
To everyone else - thanks for putting up with me
@Elsie-Spectre We should be friends because I too find these things interesting. I love bouncing ideas for the better of the community
@Sinead-Hannigan But entry limits has always been around?
@Merida-Dahmer hmm I remember judging a show and there was someone who had placed in almost every spot. And we were talking about limiting entries in levels. It’s been a long time ago but I definitely do remember.
Edit: my bad. I am an idiot. I thought that was the situation but it must’ve been a different issue
Patsy Brennan Banned
It seems like such a rush these days to get 100+ horses to a certain number, breed, repeat?
we used to only have about 10 horses each, now everyone has 50+ and breeds and then100+ and breeds and its rush rush rush rush.
The cap has always been around, for many reasons..
Equus-sims as it was was designed for playing with a few sims horses , not rushing hundreds through theoretical levels on a document sheet.
thats just my two pennies.
Show down my loves and enjoy your pixel ponies !
I personally am a player who enjoys rushing my horses through documents, so I figured I could offer perspective on this topic in the thread!
I own around 160 horses, not as impressive as some but the reason my numbers are so high are pretty simple - I just love them all. It's not a lack of love or enjoyment that pushes me to use the system to the fullest, nor is it a desire to rush - I'm actually quite slow, heh - but it's because I absolutely adore seeing them succeed, and seeing that success manifested through impressive pedigree sprawls and the bonuses it offers is incredibly satisfying as a player who's worked constantly for that exact goal. They're not numbers to me, they're my pons and I love 'em. I just happen to also love the fancy numbers that are tied to them. If there weren't any fancy numbers, I'd still love them, and I would probably still have this many
Part of the reason why EQ's system is great because you don't HAVE to choose the 'mainstream'. Nobody is forcing you, certainly not me with my moderately sized crop. You can totally go all out and have 400+ horses under your wing or just operate small with less than 20. You'll still be successful -- My close friends in this community taught me the lesson that you need to seek out your success and happiness individually, determining what it means to you, and you alone. That's not directed at anyone, of course. Just a general statement that feels good to get off my chest. If you find happiness by having a small stable of foundations, you totally have my support. If you find it in having 25+ babies running around your stables that you struggle to fit into show levels you'll find an equal amount of support from me!
.....On the topic of more horses per level though, I'm perfectly fine with the current system as most are -- It's more of a challenge, having to sort them into levels and ensure that everyone is able to compete. Brings a new depth to the gameplay, for me, and there are certainly other options to consider like leasing or otherwise. I personally forget to lease out most of the time, so some of my 'big three' horse teams are on rotation and switch every show, which is easier to handle as it's all kept in-house then without exterior variables.
@Luke-Teth You really have some great points here! The reason for why I have 400+ horses is because
- I love creating horses in CAS
- I love my pixels way too much so I can't let them go either!
- I am not obssesed with points and such, if I had been I would have been screwed. Because let's face it, I have 30 horses in level 1 Eventing, it will take a serious amount of time to get them past that, but to me that doesn't matter.
So the overall thing I'm saying here is pretty much the same as you: It's your game and you alone decide how you wanna play it.
And yes I am also all for keeping the competition system we have now. I already pay plenty enough in show fees, and if we raise the amount of horses allowed, then the fees would probably go up too
@Anna-Hertler this would be me. but not with eventing just with show hunter since it's my personal favorite discipline(yet I only have about 3 horses that show in it).
I feel like if I trusted my game enough I'd have over 100 horses, at one point I had 90 but game crashed and I lost all the foundations I made.
What I personally do is show the horses I care more about advancing in their respective levels, and then if there's space, show some of the others in lower levels, just to keep bringing up their points. I get less money back than if I were to hypothetically enter all 9 level 5 horses in their level, but I can get the same potential points by entering them lower.
If you're having trouble choosing which group of your horses to enter, you could rotate who gets priority each month maybe. Figuring out balance with 100+ horses just ends up being part of the experience.
@Blake-Bellanaris That is what I have been doing (I gave priority to some horses and others did not compete or did it at lower levels). The difficult thing is when they can not compete at lower levels because they fill the space with other horses competing at their current level.
I have changed to some discipline horses (or are in process, at least, I sent it a few days ago) and others I have looked for lease.
Thank you very much, really, all the comments that you have posted. Even if they are against.
As I said, what I like most about Equus is to be able to compete (not to have many points, that does not really matter to me, I'm happy if they only get a title), and I'm sorry to have to decide who competes and who does not.
I set up my horses by teams if I have to many for one show (Western Disiplines is my area in this). So I tend to rotate them through. I'm getting to a point now that it's getting down to less and less missing a show sd their levels change with the rotation. Basiaclly Team 1 competes in the first show that comes up, Team 2 in the second ect.
However I think allowing more horses per shows that are mostly phantoms (speaking for the majority of the western shows as it's down to a point its two player based horses and more phantoms then it should be) should be implemented or merging down a level with member understanding you're still paying for your horses level but it's been merged to allow less phantoms and more player chance at placing.
Why should you have more chance of winning against phantoms as against members?
@Elsie-Spectre I think phantom horses should be brought down a level, I know it takes 10 horses for a full class, but I feel like the smaller shows that don't get a lot of entries. With a past show I entered in, only 3 members entered in the level my horse was eligible to enter in, but we still went against 7 phantoms, and the phantoms held the 1st-6th spots so none of the members gained points at all.
In smaller shows or classes with not enough entries in it to make it to 10, I dunno if it is even possible but to, but if there's not enough horses for the placing to be 1-6 then add phantoms in but only to contradict the number of horses in.
Uhhhm so like if there were only 3 horses entered in this class in total, then only 3 phantoms could be put in to compete against them that way people can still gain points and prize money. Kinda starting to give up with the discipline in question because there aren't enough entries in the level my horse competes at.
Kinda glad someone brought up phantoms
Phantoms were brought in, partly, so that no one person could win an entire class. What if one person switches to a low level or less popular discipline solely to take advantage of this system? Spamming a discipline with only their horses and thus making payout direct to only one person. Sure, you can say this is the person's advantage to entering a less popular discipline, but again, we try to balance the economy and flow of money, so funneling to a single or only a few players is not fair. Why should one be guaranteed benefit in one discipline, but not in another?
I know some have said it "feels" better to lose against members than against phantoms, but probability-wise, it's the same and was introduced to balance this. It feels frustrating to lose consistently and seeing phantoms win instead of other players makes this frustration greater, but one can be consistently bad and have a horse not advancing in a popular discipline just the same amount.
In my experience, what has affected this most is balance of shows. From my understanding, this has gotten better, but in the past, not many as member-hosted shows existed for saddle seat, driving, and some of the other events as for the bigger ones. Thus, what affected a slow progression in my horses was not the lack of other members in the class, but a lack of member-hosted shows.
Now, I will preface this next bit with that before I took a break, I was very diligent about entering shows and finding leasers if I couldn't enter shows. I showed horses nearly as soon as they were registered and rarely missed one. So let's have some examples.
I have one horse with ID 10027 in Draft Horse Showing that has 195 pts. That's an old ID, right? Long time, eh? However, I have a horse with ID 10003, competing for the same length of time, with only 187 pts in Eventing. Draft Horse Showing is a much smaller discipline than Eventing, yet it has made almost no difference in their point gains.
Here's another group of some of my horses:
ID#20589 with Trail Pleasure 113 pts/Western Pleasure 118 pts
ID#20433 with 105 pts in Show Hunters
ID#20323 with 105 pts in Halter
ID#20071 with 129 pts in Dressage
^in this example (with the exception of the last which is a slightly older horse) the youngest horse, which is in some of the disciplines mentioned in this thread, is actually the most accomplished
Here's another (in case anyone wants to argue pedigree points):
ID#27725 with Eventing 61 pts/Show Jumping 64 pts (this horse has +25 in show jumping pedigree bonus)
ID#27745 with Park Pleasure 42 pts/Fine Harness 72 pts (this horse is foundation)
And, yes, I realize I have a huge amount of horses to find what I want to show. But I was able to find horses in all different disciplines all made around the same time with about the same amount of points. I was able to find old horses with fewer and young horses with more and vice versa as well. Yes, we all have that unlucky horse or that super lucky one, but statistically, phantoms shouldn't make a difference. They haven't for me.
In fact, you've got a small advantage against phantoms compared to members horses since phantoms never have a pedigree bonus.
Please consider that a major factor of 2.5 is that success is equally achievable in any discipline. Shows are hosted for every discipline with equal frequency, each discipline has the same class sizes, points, and payout. This is important compared to 2.0 where if the association running your discipline wasn't organised, lacked time or staff then your discipline just didn't get many shows and your horses has a very limited opportunity for success compared to an active discipline/association.
If we were to start reducing the number of phantoms in classes with fewer horses then in the best case we're giving the horses in that class better chances of winning by removing more 'losing' placings, and in the worst case we're causing stacks of confusion and extra rules by rebalancing the point/payout scheme. Either option would give horses in this class a better chance of success than horses in more popular disciplines could achieve, which would break a lot of the work we put into making sure that whatever discipline you picked, you had an equal opportunity for success.
All points thus far have been based on prefering to lose to other members than to lose to phantoms, which is fair, but not a good basis for change when you have so many more factors to consider
I think it also stands to mention that classes that have phantoms placing 1 - 6 means the host if member hosted can be hosting shows to take advantage of entry fee's as well, not trying to say anyone is just bringing what is in my thoughts to the table . Especially if its a higher level class with a large entry fee, no member places that's basically free cash into their bank. While yes I understand what members gain in entry fee's normally ends up back to a member one way or another through pay outs it's still something to take into consideration where a smaller class of 3 & 7 could be strictly phantoms placing. Someone somewhere will eventually take advantage when they notice things. It's why I mentioned what I did earlier, along with merging down smaller classes with members understanding while yes they paid the fee for their class they will be running down a class level . Even if its just off setting a class that has 3 member to 4 phantoms so theres still the possiblity of not every member placing 1-6. Merging down a level also helps with the phantom topic all together. I wasn't trying to say "give so and so or myself higher chances of winning" I worded my statement before slightly wrong (lack of sleep xD)
There's been times where several times in a row horses haven't placed in a certian disipline that was strictly phantom run, I've had it happen in a streak of shows. Classes where it's against horses is one thing because you have all the bonus points/pedigree points. Phantoms however it feels more of a luck of the draw base as though the pedi points don't matter. Several of my horses in the less popular shows haven't advatnced in months point wise because of phantoms and because they kept being beat out by phantoms I simply said enough and put the horse in a "frozen" state as it was never going forward despite having even a pedi bonus.
As I am part of the CC, I can tell you that most of the time those small shows doesn't have a member applying to host them, it is usually an EC hosting the member ones as well and if we hadn't stepped in to do so, then the show just wouldn't get hosted at all and those shows would end up being hosted once per month while all others get hosted twice per month. I had to say this because it does feel a bit unfair that you are saying that we might take advantage of the situation, while what we really are trying to do is giving you as much chance of entering shows as everyone else.
That being said, I can also tell you that I host a lot of small disciplines, both for the CC and as a member host, and my experience is that most of the time the member horse places, even if all the other entries are phantoms. Sure they might not get a 1st place, but they do place most of the time. I also think that, what Elsie is trying to say (please do tell me if I misunderstood you dear), is that if they lower the amount of entries in a sub-class for those smaller disciplines, then they will need to do so with the big disciplines like show jumping, eventing and dressage as well. Otherwise it wouldn't be fair. And that would cause other issues like having to raise the entry fees by a lot, since a lot more horses will end up placing and needing payouts, otherwise the bank system will most likely colapse.