(11-28-2012 08:08 PM)Tad Carlucci Wrote:  That means, 25% more people will be producing 'improvements' each generation. And that means the desirability of any cat will be lowered. Why purchase if, baring exceedingly bad luck, you'll produce it on your own?

(11-27-2012 09:05 PM)Ethereal Hurricane Wrote:  

(11-27-2012 11:05 AM)Saga Felix Wrote:  Oh, and to the few that insinuates that those who suggests things will never be happy anyway, let me say: When I started in KittyCatS, there were 3 major things I wished would change: Unpack-time, gender on boxes, and the kittens' time to grow up. 3 things. 2 of them have already happened, and I think we can all agree that those are good things, and that KittyCatS fixed these things brilliantly.
-I am sure that this last thing would also be a good thing, but I do not think it will happen. Why? Well, simply because too many people disagree, and I don't think KittyCatS would force a change that could split the community.
-But even if I think it's unlikely to happen, I will stand by the last of "my 3 wishes" any time :-)
-Saga

So just because your other 2 ideas (which were pretty good, and generally agreed upon by the almost the entirety of the community, probably even before YOU posted them), saying this change, by default, should get made is just plain silly.

(11-27-2012 09:05 PM)Ethereal Hurricane Wrote:  You guys gang up on people who disagree with you, and hey, that's basically how every society works anyway, so it's not surprising, but I for one wont give in.

(11-28-2012 10:45 PM)dakillakm Resident Wrote:  I just had a revelation and it involved understanding the mathematically complex brain of Tad! Surely this is a breakthrough worth getting back on topic for XD

(11-25-2012 03:34 AM)Ethereal Hurricane Wrote:  I'd wager the reason they don't change it when people ask, is because they need to have a buffer between when your new generations can breed, and all it takes is them bending to change one time, and people will just ask for the next thing.

If they make it so cats gain love right away, in a few months people will just start asking for it to take 5 days instead of 10 days, and then 1 day instead of 5 days, and so on. You might say "That's just silly", but history in ANY situation like this, proves, that's what will, in fact, happen.

(11-25-2012 09:45 PM)Ethereal Hurricane Wrote:  

(11-25-2012 03:12 PM)Khea Karas Wrote:  I agree with Penfold. Its much easier to pair kittens back to parents if it takes only 7 days (one breeding cycle) to reach breeding age than to wait approx 14 days (2 breeding cycles). Cutting back breeding lifespan to accommodate the extra week would be a good compromise. It will not change how many kittens a cat breeds, just let them breed their first time sooner.

Its funny because this topic has been bought up before and alot of people then agreed it would be a great idea when Saga mentioned this. How people change their minds....just saying

The point of the extra seven days is so that you CAN'T just make it simple and easy to breed back to the parent. Everyone trying to make a case for the change to be made is only suggesting it because it would make things easier. It's already easy, why does it need to be easier?

Heck, in the current state of KittyCatS, you don't even have to try anymore to discover hidden traits, because the most recessive furs/eyes/ears/whiskers/etc can be found on cats probably just sitting at the love shack because their owner has 100 of the same thing. Making things easier is unnecessary.

I'm tired of people asking for changes just so things are easier, and breeding takes less time. This isn't the land of everyone deserves to have everything instantly. Earn your cats. Everyone else plays the waiting game, so can you.

And just FYI, not everyone agrees every time saga says something
http://www.kittycats.biz/forum/showthread.php?tid=2363&page=1


* obligatory statement to follow*

Let the kittens grow and mature, you wouldn't want your real kid stepping foot out of the womb, already ready for sex would you?

(11-27-2012 02:42 AM)Ethereal Hurricane Wrote:  

(11-26-2012 08:34 PM)dakillakm Resident Wrote:  Well, let me not insinuate; I was talking about the cranky ratings troll, Ethereal muhahaha But, let me say that it is easy to misread the tone of things, and I think Ethereal was only expressing her frustration at people wanting easy and instant gratification in a general manner. However, when one is sick and sleepy and frustrated with her stubborn kitties it is easy to take a little offense at the suggestion that wanting things to be more convenient is, necessarily, wanting things to be handed to you.

Well first off, thank you for bestowing upon me, the glorious title of 'Cranky Ratings Troll". I have worked night and day, day and night, hitting that 1 star rating on every post I see, tirelessly, endlessly, to attain the prestigious...yeah I'm done with that....

Hopefully you didn't take me seriously when I suggested that I would actually waste my time down-voting threads (that is not to say that I've never 1 starred a thread before, I have). I could care less for the most part what people post, and I post very openly against people, and hold no grudges. I would rather get my post edited by Callie and speak my mind, than downrate a thread for a malicious reason.

Now, that's cleared up, back to business!

I'm against threads like this for one reason; no one has yet offered an idea that would suggest it would be better for the community as a whole to allow this type of change. No matter how you try to string it along, the change is only beneficial to the individual breeder. People try to argue that if you get an early breed, just take it off the end of the cats life, sure, that's all well and good in simple a+b=c rudimentary math (yeah, that's a call back to an old thread....), but when you get down to it, a cat is more valuable at the beginning of its life, not at the end. 100 days later that cat probably has great great grand kids, with better traits. So that alone makes the change not fair and balanced. This type of change has no real benefit other than breeding early.

People who suggest these ideas don't look at the big picture, they look at the simple, instant effect, and disregard anything long term. The last thread like this died with no 'real' solid ideas for why or how this change should be made, and this thread will most likely die the same way. This is why I shoot ideas like this down, because they're not good. I'm sorry if that is offensive to the people suggesting them, but hey, not every idea ever thought of is good. ^__^

With Love,
Your friendly neighborhood Cranky Ratings Troll <3

(11-28-2012 07:32 PM)Ethereal Hurricane Wrote:  Anyway, back to the thread, I agree with you devilness, surprisingly, but the problem is, there ARE people who are just out to make a buck, and IMO, this type of thing would help that along, as seen by some responses in this thread, about how cats are valued, and traits dropping in price.

Making a change just so people can make more money, would be wrong, and that's how I've read it out to be. Saga mentioned that traits become less valuable, and you lose your return on them before you can get them worked in. Not to be contradict myself, but isn't that line of thinking purely from an economic standpoint? You're saying this change should happen so people don't lose their money on an investment? I said this change shouldn't be made because it would change the economy. That isn't a good reason to make a change.

(11-28-2012 10:45 PM)dakillakm Resident Wrote:  I just had a revelation and it involved understanding the mathematically complex brain of Tad! Surely this is a breakthrough worth getting back on topic for XD

(11-28-2012 10:33 PM)penfold83 Resident Wrote:  Ekkk i never knew one little idea would get heated up like this, please ethereal it not a my gang says this your gang says that ie bandwagon sigh.

I really hopped this thread would be a idea thing let peeps meet in the middle, rejuvenate a idea that was looked past before.
It would of been nice for to no's and the yes's peeps too meet in the middle and put forward the case......How so wrong i thought (

(11-28-2012 07:32 PM)Ethereal Hurricane Wrote:  Anyway, back to the thread, I agree with you devilness, surprisingly, but the problem is, there ARE people who are just out to make a buck, and IMO, this type of thing would help that along, as seen by some responses in this thread, about how cats are valued, and traits dropping in price.

Making a change just so people can make more money, would be wrong, and that's how I've read it out to be. Saga mentioned that traits become less valuable, and you lose your return on them before you can get them worked in. Not to be contradict myself, but isn't that line of thinking purely from an economic standpoint? You're saying this change should happen so people don't lose their money on an investment? I said this change shouldn't be made because it would change the economy. That isn't a good reason to make a change.

(11-28-2012 11:25 PM)dakillakm Resident Wrote:  I missed this post entirely the first go round I guess. And yes, combined with this and what Tad said, I can see how it could have several effects on the economy. I would say, however, that looking at it from an economic standpoint is partially important, although not purely. Being a Second Life gypsy, primarily, I can understand the financial need to use kitties to support moar kitties. BUT if the end economic consequences would be negative anyway then I guess my previous argument about being able to more easily build on new traits is moot.

(11-28-2012 10:33 PM)penfold83 Resident Wrote:  Ekkk i never knew one little idea would get heated up like this, please ethereal it not a my gang says this your gang says that ie bandwagon sigh.

I really hopped this thread would be a idea thing let peeps meet in the middle, rejuvenate a idea that was looked past before.
It would of been nice for to no's and the yes's peeps too meet in the middle and put forward the case......How so wrong i thought (