Allow All Males to Breed within the Pack

I have read this entire thread, and female studding seems to be a huge derail of a very cool original idea! Multiple breeding males WITHIN a pack will not hurt the stud market. It will actually lower the mass production of pups, AND make male wolves and pups more desirable over all. It will also allow lore players like myself to get MORE invested in breeding and fertility in the like, keeping a healthy and diverse player-base. I can see no disadvantages to any of this.

Like yes, people would have to pay to use this added feature. Just like you have to pay to use other features. Or you could just not. 

And by "paid feature" we're not even talking about pay to win using real currency. That would make a big difference. But with this breeding feature, as with the studding breeding feature, SC would very often be an option.

Like deadass it was a halfbaked idea for a lot of reasons and definitely not the best suggestion out there but the concept that the reason it's not great is because it would be forcing people to do anything is so funny. There are lots of flaws to the concept  but the idea that adding an optional feature as an additional breeding option  in the midst of 2 other options making it 3 breeding options being something that is forcing players to do something ain't it, lol.

Yeah I just posted the female studding part here because I was taking the OG idea I linked and relating it to how it could be used to make other males more useful. It got a little off topic for a second talking about how female studding would actually work, but that wasn't the point. The point was that there's this feature in LD they may be including in WD already, and it could be used to provide additional male options. Or it could not. Just an idea. 

I think what you've missed is that if a player wants to use a male other than their breeding male, what you've suggested would force them to pay another player currency to do so, it would be the only way they'd be able to use a male (EDIT: within their own pack) other than their breeding male.

I'm not here to argue I just wanted to point that out, so this is the last thing I'll say on it.

But they already have to? I think what you've missed is that that very thing is already the case. If a player wants to use a male other than their breeding male, atm they must pay for a stud. But again, no one HAS to not use their breeding male. The existence of the stud feature doesn't force them to pay another player currency, unless they WANT to use the stud feature. If someone WANTED to use the feature I proposed, they could. Or they could not. 

Re: it wasn't an amazing idea but the fact that it works the same as a feature already used in the game isn't the issue with it

It's a cool idea! I just don't think it relates much to the issues stated above! If you would flesh it out and start a new topic about it, I'm sure you'll find lots more people who are onboard with it! I just would like to see more of your thoughts on the original topic, or what problems you have with it?

I didn't have any issues with the og idea! I just was a bit confused about the "no duplicate suggestion topics" rule so I thought ALL discussion of having more than one male that can breed in a pack had to go here! (And by the looks of the replies, I don't think I was the only one!) I liked the original idea but thought more options for discussion and for devs to choose from would be good. 

I've since realized that not all discussion on having more than one male that can breed has to go here, so I've been scoping out other threads and forming better ideas. I've also decided that the idea I posted here probably wouldn't be the best way to go, partially because of the fact that a female studding program would be a lot more complicated to implement here than on LD, so while what I thought I was doing was solving one problem with a feature likely already on the way, I wasn't. So I probably won't make my own thread on that idea. But it was never an issue with not liking the og idea, just a matter of being mistaken about where to discuss my own!

As I said in an earlier reply, I really do hope that more conversation happens that builds this idea up!

I think it’s more that you worded poorly. Like I get what you’re trying to do with having a female stud, but it honestly doesn’t seem to help fixed the problem itself. Essentially a female stud is just 1 female and basically, we’re still back to the problem at hand: only 1 wolf is available to all wolves. So technically, there’s no flexibility that other players wanted. Also how it’s implied, it’s only open to other players, not the owner themself, who owns said female stud 

Ah, that makes sense! Sorry for making you repeat yourself. ^_^ Yeah, I do hope this gets a lot more traction! My pack is mostly males and it bums me out that most will never pass on their stats/genes.

Ah, maybe I did word it poorly originally, or maybe I assumed too many players were familiar with the reverse breeding feature in LD. I really don't want to dominate to topic, but just to clarify what I meant I guess:

A pack would have one studdable male, same as now. They'd be able to breed within the pack, same as now. Then, similar to LD, a pack could put as many females as wanted up for stud, while still having one male up for stud. At any time they could also decide to take the female off stud and breed her themselves. Just like with LD. The only difference would be that ANY male could be used for that female's studded heat, instead of ONLY the breeding male. So instead of restricting anything, this would ADD the option of allowing non-breeding males to breed, without taking anything else away. Many males available to many females, and many females available to many males. However, it would depend on a female studding system similar to LD being implemented, which it might not. It wouldn't force players to do anything, because it would be just the same as the studding system already in place, and would be equally as optional. 

That being said, I'm not personally going to pursue this idea any further, so if someone else has read this and would like to discuss it further, I'd encourage them to make a new thread. You can even PM me a link. But I think the idea has a lot of holes to work through and I don't think this thread is the place to do it, and I don't like the idea enough to pioneer it on my own (but I'd be willing to help someone else who does.)