Allow All Males to Breed within the Pack

@Siren, I still don't feel like it's forced, since you can decide not to use the system, but I do still see the point you're making and I think we can agree that it would be a limitation, while disagreeing about how vast a limitation it is! I'll keep thinking on the subject. 

@Vincent, hm, that is something I hadnt thought about. In order to implement female studding at all, there would definitely have to be some sort of change from the LD system... Like sending food and amusement items via the breeding that are used automatically (similar to how nesting materials are included in the reverse studding on LD) so that that CAN'T happen... Yes, the more I think on the idea, the more complicated it becomes. Might make my own thread so that the idea can be discussed further, though.

Yeah agreed about not wanting to bring up female studding 

Hmm maybe another suggestion for the males is to limit breedable males to the # of females (ex 5 females per 1 breedable male) and so on kinda thing. So say a pack of 30, there’s 5 breedable males to the 25 females. That’s another possibility over the lvling requirement that was brought up too

Ah didn't see the other replies before posting but I think my above response covers those as well.

Aaaa youre right, thanks for the reminder @stormy •u•)/

Id like to comment on how people seem really concerned with traditional breeding as a downside to more breeding males, this is something that already happens with popular studs on the market anyways , people are gonna find their ways around restrictions no matter what you do and I dont think its really as big a problem as people think it is - with more variety of males within your own pack outside breeding will already be less common so people can focus on breeding for traits rather than nib breeders paying an arm an a leg to keep their lines clean. Traditional breeding as a market probably wont be that huge as I doubt so many people are that trusting of a stranger to return their precious wolves :0

The pups could easily have guaranteed survival until they get to their father's pack maybe? Then the puppies survival would be wholly dependent on the buyer to keep them fed and safe.

There's also a thread now with a cool concept of how you could apply some irl wolf behavior into a better breeding system, which I feel could fit the game pretty well. Link.

I think no matter which way you slice it limiting males in a pack encourages mass breeding,  adding a couple new breeding male slots just makes the diversity in pups lineages higher.

And, as a player whose always curious about what kinda pups I can make - its been 2 months of game play and Im already bored of my breeding male, but he cant be changed (without paying like 50gc) for another 5 months. I think that allowing more males to breed adds more playability to the game overall and lets people adhere to their lore better : )

@red

No, I just straight up disagree with you because you either do not understand or simply are not reading the two responses that explain how locking a mechanic behind paid interaction with another player is forcing someone to pay to interact with another player to use that system.

It's not just a limitation. It's horrible game design. Simulation games are meant to have an element of player freedom, for good or ill, and a large multiplayer system needs to allow this to happen. This is literally the crux of this thread. Many of us want to keep male wolves and have them pass on their genetics. We want this in a way that seems fair and balanced for everyone.

What you are suggesting will benefit only certain players and playstyles. The best thing the developers can do is expand the system to allow more options or keep the system as is in my opinion. WD is already starting from a point where so many different playstyles can co-exist and even in this thread all advocate for a system change together for different reasons.

The single breeding male mechanic is flawed, but I honestly couldn't say I would have done differently as it seems like a good game solution. In fact I didn't question it until someone who didn't play LD said something to me first, now it's tolerable but I would like better.

Wolf packs in the wild have a single breeding pair almost exclusively. Males don't just wander home with puppies they sired. But this hardcore realism is likely a bit too niche to appeal to as many people as are playing WD right now. So we have a breeding male. This is not something that at least some of the users agree is the best system. I will not be discussing other suggestions in this thread any further, but since this reply really has a lot to do with the thread's topic I feel I should post it.

First, I literally offered an "agree to disagree." I wrote that comment with the intent to perhaps rework the idea in my head, or in my own thread, or whatever, but the point would be that I would stop posting about it here. The topic seemed closed enough in this thread, and I was fine with that, and I didn't intend to drag it out any longer. I was hoping we could both maturely agree to disagree, without insult or immaturity or anything like that. I had certainly left the discussion with a lot to consider, and with an idea a little better thought out than when I began thanks to the constructive criticism I got here.

Second, I understand now that this is not a brainstorm thread. I (and many others I think, based on the alternate suggestions in the replies) was confused by the no duplicate topics rule. This was the first thread I saw about not having only one breeding male and I thought all ideas on that topic had to be posted here. My bad for not reading the room, but you very easily could have said that my suggestion was off topic and this wasn't really a brainstorm thread (as another person did, so I posted said agree to disagree comment with intent to run off and potentially post somewhere else.)

I do not understand why you have written a long reply telling me I must not have read or understood what was said just because we don't agree, followed by insulting the offhand and vague concept I threw out as a quick brainstorm. I have already taken critique and understand that my idea would not work as posted; there's no reason to go on and on about a first draft of a concept being terrible game design, especially after the conversation was over. I read what you said, I understood what you said, and I agreed with a lot of it! But not all of it. Your points are not the end all be all-- they are not fact, they are opinion, and like it or not people can fully read and understand your opinion without agreeing with it.

Moving on.

Wolvden can be played without ever having paid interaction with another player, yes, but many, many features have paid player interaction. Want to acquire an item you can't get in a shop quickly and without uncertainty? You will have to pay another player for it. Want a specific wolf? You will have to pay another player for it. Want to breed to a male from outside your pack? You will have to pay another player for it. These are all features that are not required to play Wolvden, but do require paid interaction with other players. You can still find non-shop items, you can still find wolves and customize them and breed for traits, you can still breed wolves using your own pack's breeding male. But if you want a specific item, wolf, or breeding without grinding for those things yourself you will have to pay another player. 

If stud females were required for males who were not the breeding male to breed, then players can still grind to get the combinations they want in their sires and dams. It would just likely be faster to pay another player to get it done faster, same as the rest of the game. 

If you believe it unreasonable, or bad game design, or detrimental to abstaining users to have mechanics that use paid interaction, then tbh why are you playing this game? Are you truly going say that studs, trades, sales, and other features of the game potentially yet to come (including a ton that may be ported from LD) are bad and should be removed? That the very existence of these features are detrimental to those who choose not to use them?

The addition of an optional game feature, even if it requires paid interaction between players, isn't restrictive or pay to play or anything like that. If you don't want to use the feature, then don't. Just as some don't use studs or the trading center. That's fine for them, and the existence of studding and TC isn't hurting them.

I'm not even saying my idea is the best solution to the problem. Since realizing there are multiple threads about the breeding male thing, I've found many I like more, so it's not even my favorite. But insinuating that any optional mechanic that has the player paying another player is a terrible idea is asinine. My idea ADDED options, it didn't take them away or even change any already existing options. I don't think the current system is broken, I just think it could be built upon. Like you said, it's tolerable but I would like better. I fail to see how adding options hurts players who choose not to use them. 

As for the realism... Look, Devs aren't going hardcore with the realism. They're trying to strike a balance between real wolf behavior and a game. As it happens, "Casanova" wolves (the famous M#302 of Yellowstone, for example) do exist, but it's not very common. Only a few males have been proven to show such behavior, so it's realistically possible, but not realistically likely. A similar mechanic is one of many options the devs would have if they wanted to add a somewhat-realistic feature, but it definitely might not be the best one, for the game or for the realism factor. 

Regardless, if you insist on hardcore realism within your pack, that's probably something you could achieve with the options given, but if devs are going to change the way breeding males work, they're going to ADD options, not take them away. And it's likely that any added features would not remove the ability of a player to functionally have a breeding pair and a pack of related wolves. 

So, if I may, if I haven't convinced you (understandable, my opinions aren't end all be all either,) then I'd like to agree to disagree. I hope that future replies on this thread help to continue to develop the original suggestion, as I really do think it's an idea worthwhile of at least pursuing. 

Apologies for butting in, but I just want to point out that other options to paid player interactions are simply that, options; from what I've gathered, your added suggestion would indeed be forced paid player interaction in order to breed a male wolf other than the breeding male. Not having any other option for using males other than the breeding male for breeding than paying another player to stud a female of theirs is inherently only giving players one option, and it's therefore forced.

Just as forced as any other feature? I don't understand the difference between paying another person for their stud because you don't want to use your stud for a certain breeding and paying another person for their female stud because you don't want to use your stud for a certain breeding. If what I'm suggesting is forced, then so is studding and trading. But they're not. You can play the game for years without using a stud or trading with another player, and you could play for years without using a reverse stud to breed a non-breeding male. It's just a matter of having a lot of options, some of which are more convenient than others. All it is is providing an additional breeding option; users would have the same exact options they have now, PLUS an additional option. The existence of the feature I suggested would not force anyone to use it or not breed, just like the existence of stud males does not force anyone to use it or not breed. It would be as you said, an option for paid player interaction.