workouts.

[Deleted]

<sup>it's beginning to get to me a bit now that people's horses are not doing well due to not having workouts - i blame myself for most of them if i'm honest... think that we shouldn't have to keep doing workouts - even horses that have had a break for a few weeks and been worked for a specific race were getting marked down for not having the works before e.g sophie's voice.

it upsets me to see members go because they don't have time for it all. i mean, kirsten for example, and if alexia get's a full time job soon, maybe her too, but i just want to know what would be easier rather than doing workouts all the time.

maybe a rolling system, for example, 1-5.

1 is a bad workout, for example, too slow etc.
5 is an amazing workout, for example, beat opponent in workout. etc.

i was just wondering as it upsets me to see people go.</sup>

[Cavallo]

<sub>This is a good conversation worth having. Okay.

With College and School starting back up, it is no longer feasible to expect every player to do workouts for all of their stock, especially the larger stables like ARS...

So Bring your ideas...I have always been STRONGLY against randomizing races...I feel that they simply aren't fair, especially if someone is roleplaying and putting effort into their horse.

So we need to come up with a compromise.</sub>

[S u N f r O s T ~]

I don't think that a lot of workouts are needed at all. I wouldn't mark down for not having a good quantity of workouts. If anything, I just want quality. I think that the real problem here is, what do you do when a horse that hasn't worked as recently is put up against a horse with a specific workout for the race? Who should win?

In all honesty, we can't really moderate this. We can only suggest to people that they judge not based on the amount of workouts but on the quality.

However, for big races like the Finish Cup, the Breeders Cup, the Triple Crown etc. - specific workouts will be needed and horses with them will do better than horses without. But for other races, this general rule of thumb should not apply - except in the case of horses not having a workout yet for that year. It being late March and all, this should not happen.

I think that all horses that have at least one workout every three or four game months should be considered actively worked.

In all honesty, I don't give my horses a workout for every race. I survey the fields and if I see a race where my horse could use a boost I'll give them a workout. A horse without a workout in the game year will get one. It's more like an as-needed kind of thing, not a requirement.

[Cavallo]

I agree. If players had to do workouts for EVERY race...well I would quit lol.

So here is the solution.
When the judges judge, please don't look as heavily upon workouts. In comparison to horses who do have works, specifically for that race...judge with a grain of salt. If the horse with the work has had poor consistency....then the member noticed this and gave them a work! This should count in their favor...

But let's say...that the horse has had great consistency and the owner gives them a workout...I wouldn't reply then on the work as much.

Another point that Frosty brought up is quality. I too am a fan of quality...not just quantity. ;)

Judges need to be fair in this and be mindful, that we do have some seriously busy people in RL trying to be active members on top of their busy schedules. Let's not punish them for this. ;)

[Deleted]

No offence, Megs, but the rolling system is asking for trouble. Don't even get me started. xD I'll be juggling school, work, and a possible lease as well as a social life I'm trying to attain.

However, I do agree with Cav and Sunfrost. I believe in QUALITY, as well as race-specific workouts.

However, for big races like the Finish Cup, the Breeders Cup, the Triple Crown etc. - specific workouts will be needed and horses with them will do better than horses without. But for other races, this general rule of thumb should not apply - except in the case of horses not having a workout yet for that year. It being late March and all, this should not happen.

This. Big races should have a specific, COMPLETE workout. However, I'm not against race-specific works for a 'unimportant' race, either. For a struggling horse, I would recommend race-specific works for any old race, to show just how much you're focusing in on improving them. It's not a be-all, end-all for them to win, but as a judge I'd take note of the extra effort presented. Also, for horses going in only/mostly high-stakes races, I wouldn't expect to see very many general works; that time general working can better be focused, in their case. But that's me and how I run my stable, I don't mark down unless the race is huge.

I have a suggestion for timing, though. Instead of "3-4 game months" why not go by number of races since last work, first?
For example, Bob raced, say 2 times in the last 4 months, and was worked those two races ago. That workout, to me, is still "fresh". If Bob, however, only raced twice in the last 6 months, and has one work, well, that work is "stale" due to time elapse.

If Lisa raced 6 times in the last 2 months, and had one workout before those 6 races, I'd consider the workout "stale" even though not much time elapsed, since she's raced a lot and hasn't had a schooling run since then.


Plus, everyone's talking (or was) about the infamous cap. Wouldn't think help avoid a need for one, anyways? Because if you race your horse a lot in a short time, you should invest more time for works. If you can't do that, maybe run him a bit less. The system I present is far from perfect (I could shoot holes in it xP) but I present it as something of a prototype.

[Cavallo]

Aug 27, 2012 13:20:39 GMT -5 @dante said:

I have a suggestion for timing, though. Instead of "3-4 game months" why not go by number of races since last work, first?

Plus, everyone's talking (or was) about the infamous cap. Wouldn't think help avoid a need for one, anyways? Because if you race your horse a lot in a short time, you should invest more time for works. If you can't do that, maybe run him a bit less. The system I present is far from perfect (I could shoot holes in it xP) but I present it as something of a prototype.

I like the concept of the workouts being based off of how many races have gone by since the last work. That I can deal with.

[S u N f r O s T ~]

I like that as well. In that case, though, workouts would most likely have to be dated in some way...

[Cavallo]

Races are categorized by weeks... hmm I think that workouts then will have to be dated on the horses' profiles.

Like

Arachne - "workout title" - written May Week 2

and then the judge will have to look at the horses' records.
SO for keeping records the week the race is ran should be listed like:
1st - TW Y12 Hop to it Derby - May Week 2 - [M/5]

This make sense?

[Ripley]

-agrees with Cav-

[Deleted]

I agree, makes my life so much easier xD

Not that I've been very good with workouts this year anyway, since I've been so busy, but I have no hard feelings for placings because of it, I know I'm slack so =P

[S u N f r O s T ~]

Aug 27, 2012 17:58:03 GMT -5 @archibald said:

I agree, makes my life so much easier xD

Not that I've been very good with workouts this year anyway, since I've been so busy, but I have no hard feelings for placings because of it, I know I'm slack so =P

I really love your attitude Archie. You're just....awesome

And I've been dating race results. Just not workouts. Perhaps I will have to start...

[Deleted]

I'd say judge workouts on quality rather than quantity - it makes things fairplay - then you don't have to do lots of works - just a couple that are very detailed.

[Deleted]

Thanks Frosty ^.^

Definitely not complaining about something that is my fault xDD