A wildlife question

[MrDDT]

They can call it whatever, but it's still just spawning. Do you understand?

I guess, you want to think of it like that. But then you can say that about a lot of things in game. The point of the "spawning" vs "breeding" is that they require other animals to "breed" the point of it is that. Just popping up because its a "spawn" point and not any other reason is what people call spawning normally.

Which is why they normally have what they call a "spawn" point.

While breeding doesnt work like that, the spawn point is based off other animals and it may or may not spawn in a 1 location over another.

[Asharad]

= four paragraphs of bribble.

Why the personal attacks? Can you support your reasoning that breeding can't be coded?

To me, the biggest problem with the breeding system is that animals can be hunted to extinction, just like the real world. I like that idea, except that most gamers would prefer to kill animals relentlessly, rather than work together to preserve a species. If breeding doesn't work, it's the fault of gamers, not the coders.

I wouldn't mind playing the role of zoo keeper, if it were possible to capture animals and pen them up. Assuming my zoo had a sustainable population, I would release the extras to the wild.

[MrDDT]

He is saying that you cant code it because no matter what its still a game and they dont really breed. I just shake my head and move on with people like that.

I think there needs to be something done about the animals. I like the breeding idea, but it needs to be really faster because like you said people dont care, they will hunt and hunt because the act of hunting is fun, and they want something to be fun not work of breeding.

I wouldnt mind animals breeding IF they were not the ONLY source of PVE. If we had zombies and mutants, vampires etc. I wouldnt mind breeding aspect at all. But right now all we have to hunt are the very limited players, and the very limited animals.

[NorCalGooey]

That's like saying your sword really isn't swinging at me because it's a game. Stupid, agreed.

They simply need to code it so "X amount of creatures in territory South for example = Y amount for rate of spawn.

If X = below 50, they spawn at 5x the rate until they reach over 50. Then they spawn at a 2x rate until 100, and 3x rate until 200, 4x rate until 300. After hitting 400 the growth will stop. If it hits 300 again, growth will start back at 300.

Something like that perhaps... I don't know.

[MrDDT]

Isnt ending up with none left a consequence?

I think there should be more, but really I think there are better ways to do it over all. People wont kill all the animals if there were bigger game to hunt. Right now its the only game in down.

Why would people go around killing all the rabbits and deer when they can get better rewards and challenge from a vampire or zombie or something? People wont worry about killing a deer or rabbit here or there. Now people might need those bones or something so they will kill them, but it wont be that much. If they are clearing them completely out of an area, they are only hurting themselves too.

[MrDDT]

Explain how they are hurting themselves if they round up the ENTIRE supply of bones? Seems like that will be the best way to starve out your enemies.

Like I said, people will monopolize every resource they can, in a video game. It's not real, so no one actually cares about driving the rabbit population extinct.

I knew you weren't the sharpest knife around, but come on man. You're really stretching on this one. It's just like you did when you went around destroying all the stumps in other tribes' areas, attempting to starve them out of resources.

1) I agree that they would have the supply of bones IF they could do that, however, if they didnt get all the animals, and others allowed them to breed in their areas. Those players would then have an unlimited supply over people like you who are short sighted. Meaning, I keep 2 animals for breeding and kill the extras. You kill your 2 animals. Next time mine breed I will then have more bones and resources than you because you NEVER will get more animal bones. THUS you wouldnt have a monopoly at all.

2) People do care, because there is a punishment. No more animals to kill, no more resources of the type that animal provided.

3) I never claimed to be the smartest person. But there is no stretching here. Me destroying stumps has nothing to do with it, as stumps yield no resources. I said this many times people were confused and THOUGHT they did, however, I wasnt confused and didnt think they did. I removed them because they look like deer and bear from far away. I did take peoples trees and some of the other resources. But nothing to do with "monopolizing" them.

LOL

DDT you've got some memory loss issues bud. Dudes still arguin with me about how the game ISNT free-to-play for preorders. What were the consequences of you cutting down all the trees in the game? Oooh you didnt get to grind lumberjacking for a couple of days until Jordi reset the trees?

If anyone in BAC could have lasted past a week of this game there probably wouldn't be any animals or trees or junkpiles or water in the world

So the tree system was broken? Im missing the point here how thats stopping anything? There was no punishment to trees, we were talking about animals and breeding. There is a punishment to that. Also I was the first to say that tree system they had was broken. Its working great now.

Im not sure how long BAC lasted because I didnt see any of them playing when I started playing. I highly doubt they could have cleared the whole world of trees, animals, junkpiles and water. (You cant even clear water really).

[GuideRaguel]

Thread Closed