|
|
---|---|
Posted by | Inbreeding mechanics |
Berenos|On hiatus (#84593) Resurgent View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-02 04:03:52 |
Yes. Inbreeding. That thing that many players go "Why do you avoid it it does nothing anyways" about. But please read it all before hitting the "NO support" button; I'd love to hear your thoughts, but please hear me out first. Inbreeding MechanicsIn real life, inbreeding will often cause malformations, mutations and a general detriment of the offspring's health if done to the extreme, and is used to conserve certain desirable traits in animals. We already have the second part easy enough - many breeding projects use the tactic of breeding the son that has the desired trait/s to his mother, or the contrary with a father and his daughters, to produce more lions with those same traits -, but I think it would be interesting to add a bit more complexity to Lioden. What if there was a set system that added a higher chance of miscarriage for each shared relative, with an added, smaller chance of producing a lethal cub, and generally producing offspring with lower stats than they would have normally, or even the possibility of spontaneous infertile cubs? It would certainly add another limit to the breeding system. Why would that be useful?The breeding system has currently a global limit, the fertile lifespan of a lion - from 2 years old to 16 years old for males, females from 2 years to 14, varying due to their own heat cycles and the use of Instant Cub Delivery, two limits to male breedings, and one for females: the males are limited by their own energy when mating with their own females, and the double of the usual energy and studding slots when mating with the lionesses of another player, while the females are limited by a cooldown after giving birth to a litter. And yet, there are easy ways to bypass these limits: the use of Energy Roots to breed within our own lionesses, that and Cape Bulrush for the stud requests, the Black Stallion that ensures the female it's used on will get pregnant the next try, and for females there is the use of Yohimbe Bark to shorten their cooldown - granted, this last item is only available during one Event and it requires a lot of them to make a big difference. Now, Energy Roots and Cape Bulrush are available all year around in the Oasis, and while the Cape Bulrush replenishes 3 stud slots per and costs 3GB - making those 3 additional studdings cost 1GB each at least -, it's rather easy to just buy Energy Roots and offer for people to send their females in heat to your account, along with the payment and other items that they wish for your male to use - at their own risk, that is. This means that the original 15 studdings limit - which would add a max of 60 new cubs to the game each week - is bypassed completely, and the amount of lionesses for them to breed now depends on the level of trust this player is given balanced with how much people want to stud to their male. A player could breed thousands of cubs, instead of the potential max of 24 cubs per lioness - the biggest litter is 4 and a lioness has a heat every 2 years until she's 14 years old, which means she can have around 6 natural heats - he could have in his own pride, plus the max amount of 2520 cubs if this male spent all of his weekly stud slots every week starting from 2 years old until he was forced to retire at 16, without using any of the items listed above. Even if we cut those numbers by half - because 1 and 2 cub litters are the most common - that amount of cubs produced by a single male is insane. How many of those cubs end up clogging the Trade Center, not quite meeting the requirements of their breeders, and yet having cost too much to be used as fodder and disappear from the database? How many of those cubs in the Tree, where they get their stats lowered to NCL amounts from before the overhaul of the system, and thus losing potential owners? With the implementation of an inbreeding system the mass breeding would slow down, either because the stillbirth regulates the amount of cubs produced or more players take their time to plan for a breeding searching for a partner with whom they share goals, if they don't want to risk it with the inbreeding penalty, letting the market breath and rejuvenate itself - and before you protest, yes, I know studdings to highly sought out lions take weeks and even months, and a lot of resources. This is meant for more studs to be sought for the players, instead of the same group all the time, which would even the market by adding more competitors, and thus lowering the prices, even. What would it consist of?To keep it well balanced, the lethal mutations would have to be a lower chance than using a CRB - whatever that chance is - but it'd be an added thing to roll when the cubs are conceived. And we already have miscarriages when a lioness isn't nested or isn't well fed, only that this would be a cumulative chance of a set percentage per shared relative, around 1%, even when that lioness is sated and nested. To avoid having everyone suffering from the penalties suddenly, this could be introduced gradually over a couple or real time months, when players have the chance of starting to reach out for lions unrelated to their own and the coders can go over everything a bit more calmly. The penalties could work in two diferent ways, but it's always calculated with the amount of repeated ancestors a lion has in his/her full heritage: first, by substracting the corresponding percentage of the inherited stats from a parent. Both parents would suffer this independently, before the resulting stats combined to be the ones of their offspring. If we take up to the Great-Great Grand-Parents of the parents, which would be up to a 30% of penalty per parent in the worts of cases; second, by adding a chance of the cubs of the litter being stillborn, rolling individually for each cub, and being the result of the sum of both the parents' penalties, divided by 2, which would result in a 15% of a cub being stillborn in the worst of cases. There's a lot of controversy regarding the possibility of a slightly higher chance of lethal mutations, so there's the option of creating a unique mutation for the system - a runt lion of sorts - that would be infertile and wouldn't be able to hunt, breed, patrol or be a king, maybe have a shorter lifespan, or having no additional mutation chance at all. Along with this, there'd be a chance - the same as the penalty - to produce spontaneus infertile lions. Summarized, inbreeding could entail:
Frequent comments:
*Note: Given the amount of feedback this has received, I will no longer reply to every single one; the OP is very clear on both the basis of the suggestion as well as the issues it was inspired of, and you are free to agree or disagree; just please don't take it on me as player. If you have doubts after reading it, feel free to PM and I'll try my best to explain myself better when I have the time. Nothing would please me more than to find a middle ground for the reasonable issues mentioned over the replies to be resolved, or even have another, better suggestion be born from this one. |
xXDruidXx (#74535)
Nice Guy View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:05:49 |
Bezthiel, well there must be another way to get that marking? How else would the original have gotten it? 0 players like this post! Like? |
Bezthiel 🍉 (#81210)
Lone Wanderer View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:10:02 |
The more I think about it, the more I'd also say that making inbreeding affect anything would mean the heritages of every existing lion would have to be erased. Otherwise no one would truly be starting from 0, a ton of people may never know there were any changes. Which is something they would absolutely need to be aware of, even if they don't read news. It took a long time for people to catch on that there was a genetics change. Some didn't, maybe still don't even know there were multiple changes to it since it was implemented too. If inbreeding is suddenly turning into a detriment, it's not fair to just drop that on prides that are already inbred. Might be annoying for some people to have their heritages erased, but it would be the only fair way to go about it. Start from the beginning for everyone. I still don't support, because I think it's way too many penalties to integral parts of the game just to force a playstyle. But I could accept easier if it came with a heritage erase. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Bezthiel 🍉 (#81210)
Lone Wanderer View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:11:26 |
The original Red Panther came from a special/raffle lioness. Currently the ways to get it are: buy from a person who has a king with it (they are all bred from the same king and his mom/sisters, so very inbred). Hope someone chases one off so it has no heritage. Hope another Red Panther lioness is released and the person who wins it does not inbreed her to produce kings. 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 03/04/17 @ 10:12:07 by Bezthiel (#81210) |
xXDruidXx (#74535)
Nice Guy View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:11:47 |
Bezthiel, I was thinking there would have to be some sort of heritage erase, but maybe the heritage would still be there, but every currently existing lion would be treated as not inbred? Like a gen1 0 players like this post! Like? |
Finnegan (#85322)
View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:12:08 |
As Bezthiel mentioned, what about markings that are only distributed through the raffle lioness? The only way to obtain those markings would be to breed to her. And then to breed to her offspring. The most reliable way would be to breed her and her offspring together. And we're assuming that these markings have a decent passage rate which, many times, they don't. I really don't appreciate the general tone you're taking regarding the way other people breed their lions "willy nilly." Even if you're not bothered about inbreeding, most breeders take exceptional care regarding the lions they breed together. Your most prized lions have a limited number of breedings, and it's not a very large number considering the pass rate for some of the rarer bases and markings. I really feel like you're dismissing the effort players who don't mind inbreeding put into obtaining their own goals on this site, because they're different from your own. It's fine to want something different. It's not really fine to talk down to other individuals who don't play, or want to play, this game the same way you do. I'm not personally interested in the Lioden you are suggesting. It wouldn't be fun for me. I'm not forcing you to play the way I play, and I don't want to be forced to play the way you want to play. I'm not attempting to force you to change the way you play. You can play without inbreeding your lions. There are clans and subcommunities for it with a good amount of support. If your suggestion is implemented, you're forcing me to change the way I play. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Berenos|On hiatus (#84593)
Resurgent View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:13:38 |
@Klare In any case, the most this would take effect it'd be up to the Geat-Great Grand-Parents, the most a Full Heritage of a lion can be seen without checking out their ancestors. Up until now it wasn't needed to check the heritage of a lion, it'd only matter if it has the stats and/or traits you want. With such a huge player base - up to 1000 active members more or less, with the side accounts thrown in the lot - it wouldn't be so difficult to start "groupal breeding projects" for those who wish to beat the odds - they already do, anyway, only this would mean they'd need many other players to do it, which would be very positive. And what happens if some don't? It'd take some really, really bad luck for a cub to be stillborn out of a 7% chance. Most lions only have a "partial heritage" of sorts, for exanple, when they have up to 4 generations on one side - the max you can have on a lion's heritage - and 2 or 1 in the other. Which means that, even if you breed to the same stud over and over defying the system, you'd have 5% of a chance for the miscarriage. How many cubs end up in the Tree or as fodder because no one will buy them? If this was ever implemented, it wouldn't happen because they'd be worth something, if only for those who don't want to risk that 1% chance, unlike right now, unless they have insert-special-rare-trait-thing here. 0 players like this post! Like? |
xXDruidXx (#74535)
Nice Guy View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:15:36 |
Finnegan, I assume for that there would have to be at least 2 lions with that trait raffled? Or there would be an oasis item to erase heritage. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Ranjit (#3581)
Prince of Terror View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:16:57 |
"even if you bred those lions willy-nilly" pardon me while i take some offense to this. i breed my lionesses extraordinarily careful, in terms of stats and in terms of markings, paying no attention - as you do - to any 'inbreeding.' i have exact lions chosen for my girls, all of them, whether rosette marked or not, whether stat-bred or not. please do not assume that i just breed my girls at random. i am excessively careful so as not to waste my time or money on this game. "1% per shared ancestor" out of curiosity, a few moments ago, i picked one of my lionesses, one of my slates in my ice-breeding project currently running, pulled up her heritage, and counted her shared ancestors. i came up with 13. so that would be, what, 13% total per cub? a 13% chance per cub that i'd lose that cub which would be anything from a boring dikela to an ice that i highly seek out because i like the way they look. yeah, you'll have to excuse my extreme reservation on that. i don't want to lose cubs. if i can't use my cubs, i send them to the NR for the karma boost, sometimes i sell them if i know they can, or i gift them to the tree or friends/breeding partners. i have uses for all of my cubs, even the duds. "it is not a punishment" except, yes, it is. its a punishment for something i don't even consider to be a problem in game. i'm sorry, but i do not care about inbreeding. i am here for markings, for bases, and for stats. inbreeding means nothing to me. i'm not even that much of a mutation breeding unlike some of my friends who i would hazard to venture would be hurt even worse by this. essentially it is a punishment for those of us who do not see inbreeding whatsoever in the game mechanics and do not count it in what we do. "wouldn't mean you'd lose your breeding project overnight" actually, it'd basically mean i couldn't start it at all, because there'd be no point. the lioness i mentioned in my previous post? i paid 55gb for her, if i remember right. by taking away my ability to inbreed her back to her father or her brother, that is money, real life money that i work for in order to have fun on this game, wasted and thrown down the drain. my point here is, rosettes are so difficult to breed that i have no choice but to inbreed them, because of the slots and how rarely the marking passes. it cuts off any chance because the chances you are putting forth as options make me unwilling to even bother trying and again, why would i try if there were chances of me losing cubs. there's no point for me there and if there's no point in me playing, i'm just going to leave the game, as i think others might as well. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Berenos|On hiatus (#84593)
Resurgent View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:18:39 |
@Bezthiel If you look at a Full Heritage, you can see that, up to Great-Great Grand-parents, there's 4 generations of lions. Many lions, right now, don't have a full heritage, but have mostly on one side and not on another. You could have up to 8% of penalty on either side of the lion, or a max of 16% simply because a lion cannot breed with itself. It is such a huge thing? A 16% chance of a cub being stillborn on the worst of the worst. It'd be a really bad luck streak to get stillborns from all of your breedings. 0 players like this post! Like? |
xXDruidXx (#74535)
Nice Guy View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:18:41 |
The reason I feel like this is a good idea mainly is because people "hog" or hoard certain lions. By continuously breeding them and keeping a specific marking to themselves. By having effects of inbreeding it will help to encourage them to spread the pretty markings and colours XD 0 players like this post! Like? |
Bezthiel 🍉 (#81210)
Lone Wanderer View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:24:40 |
Partial heritage...? Maybe it's because of the community you're usually associating with and buying among, but honestly? Most of my lions heritages look like this One of my kings is in there six times and one is in there three. And that's not even a lioness I've been breeding for looks, just for OG Fur so I only use my king because he's free. With the project girls I'm trying to get 10 vit markings onto? It's maybe a dozen times my king is in her heritages. You know how many times he's passed Vitiligo 2(x2) in those breedings? Maybe four and I just killed those cubs because they didn't manage to pick up a single vitiligo 1 marking any time. He's not once passed vitiligo 1(x2). It's hard enough to get the girls to pass those two markings in the slots he doesn't have them in, just so I can continue this project. 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 03/04/17 @ 10:27:45 by Bezthiel (#81210) |
Berenos|On hiatus (#84593)
Resurgent View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:24:51 |
It was an hypothetical example, the willy-nilly thing. I'm sorry if it offended you, it wasn't meant for anyone it particular, just a way to say quickly "even if you bred at random/without taking it into account". 0 players like this post! Like? |
Bezthiel 🍉 (#81210)
Lone Wanderer View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:29:32 |
Actually, looking at that, the only reason a single king isn't in there more than a dozen times is because I replaced him with a piebald mutant. Had I not replaced him early, she'd basically have a heritage that consisted of "Domino the Destitute" over and over again until the guy died. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Berenos|On hiatus (#84593)
Resurgent View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:29:34 |
I'm not sure how others would feel about the heritage wipe, I'd think they'd prefer to start that way afresh than deal with the consequences immediately. And please, guys, give me a bit of time to reply, I don't know how many are replying at the same time anymore. @Bezthiel, that certainly looks like they'd be hit pretty badly. I was thinking, in light of this, how about a maximun amount of penalty? I was thinking along the lines of more than 20%, less than 40%, but I'm not really sure what'd be reasonable in this instance. 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 03/04/17 @ 10:30:23 by Berenos (#84593) |
🔲Shitlord Mauaji🔳 (Knees (#33232) Deathlord of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 03:32:24 |
My only doubt as regardings this suggestion is: How did y'all do 12 pages full of debate in less than 24 hours? 0 players like this post! Like? |