|
|
---|---|
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. |
Five (#34182)
Eros View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 06:38:22 |
Unfortunately with posting a controversial suggestion, you're going to find yourself repeating yourself over and over again. With that said, adding clarity to the main post at hand could help but the issue still resides in those punishments/consequences that you listed. Have to agree with Heda RedBox on the passing of rare markings through a Special Lioness. To continue passing of said marking, one is going to have to inbreed like crazy whether to sell or because they simply they like the look and wish to have more. Implementing this would make these projects harder, especially if the player has to worry about the lioness miscarrying her potentially valuable cubs. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Xathina[main] (#70238)
Epic Fail View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 06:44:15 |
I'm not supporting, but it's not because this would affect my pride (which it would, my pride is super inbred), but because it would affect so many other things. I think this would have been a good thing to implement in the beginning, before the Stat Kings could infiltrate all the heritage. But because alot of lions have Keyser Soze, Boombah, and the Savannah Prince in their heritage, this wouldn't fix heritage issues at all. It would just penalize people who want pretty/statty lions. For a marking, say, like Feline 6 Onyx, to get passed around, all lions with said mark are related to the original raffle lioness. The only way for a F6O marked lion to be freed from that heritage is if he was kinged and stat/mutie replaced. Inbreeding is a key part of this game, and I'm glad it doesn't have consequences. Adding this feature would truly require a mass heritage-wipe to make it function the best, in my opinion. HOWEVER: This is the best, and most well thought up Inbreeding idea I have seen. Truly, the only thing that causes me not to want this implented is the Stillborn portion. Lower stats? I'm good with that! Lower fert? Sure, I vuka my ladies anyway. Spontaneous infertility? That sounds really cool! Higher mutie chances? It makes sense! 0 players like this post! Like? |
Five (#34182)
Eros View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 06:51:48 |
That's a good point, Xath, about how this suggestion should've been implemented in the beginning. Hell, if it was implemented around the time that I joined, it still wouldn't have truly effected anything. To be honest, in every game out there that has some sort of element of breeding in it, you're going to have those select players that are going to drive the market when it comes to high-stat creatures. It's unavoidable and you can't punish them for it because in their fall, other players are just going to take their place in a never-ending cycle. Players are just going to have to work the system or stay within their little prides until they feel confident enough to take on difficult projects. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Blue Pigeon 🐦 (#68580)
Warrior View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 06:52:24 |
Alright, I am just going to go through the suggestions you put forward as to what inbreeding could cause and speak my mind on the matter. At the end, I'll do a small summing up of my opinion on this matter. Lower stats than what would be expected I personally am not as affected by this as others, but many of my lions are inbred to my king (who I worked to get reasonably high stats). Whilst their stats may not be as impressive as most, It would be quite infuriating that their stats decrease because of them breeding to my king. A set percentage of an added chance of miscarriage|The chance would roll for each cub of the litter individually, not for the litter as a whole|With the lowest of chances and with a lion being and ancestor 16, it would mean a chance of 16% of a cub being stillborn I do not support this at all. My king has an ice base and M rosette. My side king has hematite, M rosette and Go rosette, and I am hoping to get a celestial/lilac king eventually. All of these are hard to pass naturally, so I mass breed my lions in order to get the best chance at them in my lions. I would be furious if my lions started miscarrying, not because I took bad care of them, but because of me attempting breed my inbred lions cheaply. Not to mention that for every miscarried cub, it could have had an ice base, an M rosette, a lilac base ect. This would not be fun at all, and would in all likelihood drive me away from lioden. A whole new item to ensure that at least one cub survives See above for my argument to miscarriages. However, even with this, in order to keep 1 cub from the litter, I have to pay for an item. And this item will not even fully save a multiple cub litter. Spontaneous infertility I don't support this either. I personally hate having to breed low fertility lions (I use CRBs and other mutation items to breed mutations) and I already have issues with the decreasing fertility with age we currently have. For my lions I breed to have a chance of being infertile, making me responsible for having to pay lots of SB on chasteberries or GB on Vuka Vuka for a large variety of lionesses, this would be stressful to deal with, and may definitely be a punishing factor leading to a change of online sim. Why continue playing on an online sim when it starts punishing you for your play style? A higher chance of producing a lethaly mutated cub, but still lower than a CRB - it only affects the chance of having a lethally mutated cub, not the chance of having a mutated cub overall|Or|An exclusive non-lethal mutation, consisting on weak looking, infertile lions that are unable to hunt, patrol or be kings I don't support this either. For the lethal mutations, its because I want those to remain rare. I am also hoping to breed one one day, and I do not want it to be because I naturally inbreed my lions. Since so many people inbreed lions and/or want lethal mutations, lethal mutations will have a sudden rise in numbers. I also do not want mutations based on inbreeding, because they will become easy to get by mass breeders who will dedicate their gamestyle to breeding infertile mutations and because I feel that inbreeding should not be rewarded, just as it should not be punished. Overall, I do not support this suggestion. I breed my lions to my king frequently because of several reasons. 1) I am breeding certain markings/bases (Already gone into this) 2) It is cheaper and easier than studs. Since I am trying to breed a certain marking/base, my king is the best economic option for me to use. If I have to use different lions in my breeding every now and again, then that costs SB (or GB). Not to mention that prices generally rise the better the stud. If I want my cubs to have the possibility of getting good markings, I need to stud to good studs. Even so, say I found a few studs who satisfied my criteria for 500SB each (which is likely unrealistic). If I had 30 or so lionesses, all of whom are inbred, that costs 15,000 SB. Now that is a lot of SB/GB which I could use for other items, such as buying decor, items, art, lions ect, Not to mention that the studs may have rules against low fertilities (or may rule that lower fertilities must be revealed) so I have to already spend a lot of SB on some of my lionesses before I even pay for the studding. Not to mention that the other users may go offline or may not breed all my lionesses in time, in which case I am left with lionesses who could have had another breeding and a chance to breed a good cub but didn't. It is easier and cheaper to use my own king for my breedings, hence why my lionesses are often inbred in the first place. 3) Lionesses on trade can be expensive or/and counterproductive to what I want. It would not be viable for me to buy new lions for my pride often because of this. I do sometimes buy lions from the TC, but these are either very valuable and very helpful for my projects (such as future heirs) or they are the rare lion I just buy to introduce some new markings into my pride. These are not common occurrences, and I mostly rely on the lions I've bred because they are cheaper, and generally have what I want already if I've kept them. I am sorry for being so negative about your suggestion, I may have sounded a tad harsh at times, but please don't take it the wrong way, Sadly I just feel that the suggestion would have an overall negative effect on the site, and I strongly dislike rewarding or punishing inbreeding in suggestions. However, I do appreciating you having a clear layout for which to read from, makes it easier to read and understand where you are coming from ^-^ 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 04/04/17 @ 00:18:04 by Blue Pigeon 🐦 (#68580) |
littleclod | 3x ros G3 ferus (#92938) Deathlord of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 09:14:50 |
My personal thing is that there is no set way to play lioden. If you prefer not to inbreed, you don't have to! If you prefer to inbreed, then great! But that's the thing- if this suggestion is implemented, it punishes the people that DO prefer to inbreed by lowering stats or inducing a miscarriage. (Also, idk if this was mentioned, but-)- typically, lions with rare markings such as raffle markings are all inbred to spread the marking- so breeding for a rare marking could cause a stat decrease. What if you're a stat breeder, but you also breed for markings? Say your stud has a rare marking and high stats, but so does his great granddaughter. If you breed to her, you get the marking, but the stats are lowered (perhaps not so significantly, but now she can't sell and her price has been decreased by 5-10GB for the difference that was made.) that's what personally bugs me, and is why I personally have to click no support. And more on stats- I don't like stat monsters, they seem over-hyped to me, but I don't think it's fair to punish all the hard work put into them and that market, since they're all inbred in the hopes of obtaining high stats. On the lethal mutation thing, I don't personally care, since I know I have a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining one anyways- but I saw the point that people would mass inbreed in hopes of getting them, which would devalue them. -I hope this makes sense, since I'm not as elaborate as a lot of the other users on this thread, but I'm out fishing with my friends and they won't stop bugging me- 0 players like this post! Like? |
Azara (#65842)
Astral View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 09:25:24 |
Ahem... •I can see the objection; a lot of people whether they breed for stats, markings, or just base colours sometimes put in a TON of money - Lioden and otherwise - into their breeding projects, and I understand for some of them the costs are alleviated some by inbreeding. It makes sense for them to be adverse to this suggestion. •I don't like the increase for lethal mutation. In that way, it would only reward mutie breeders. To a point you have to be careful. •I'm also not ecstatic for the miscarriage increase, for reasons stated. Spending a lot of money on a breeding for it to miscarry. I spent 14GB on my breeding that gave me Winry. She may not be inbred, but for some that cost is for inbreeding. Personally, I would've have been horribly upset if i lost that litter. I threw Winry's mom a nest as soon as she became pregnant. •I support the idea of only being punished for close breedings. Parent/child, siblings, maybe even grandparents/grandchildren. Maybe. But the punishment needs to be fixed some. Miscarriage is too rough, and muties are a reward. The stat drop is decent - in my opinion - but I don't think it should stack. I want people to still be able to do their breeding projects. As said, Lioden doesn't have a fixed way to play. •If it punishes current inbred lions it's a serious no from me. That wouldn't be fair, but I can't think of a way to ignore that without wiping heritage - something I love. We really need a coder to tell us the technicalities of this. Thanks for reading. 0 players like this post! Like? |
KarmaKitsuna (#102653)
Kind View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 13:23:29 |
I can see both sides of the argument.. but there are a few things to point out. 1. By implementing a new system, even if it takes months to roll out (bit by bit etc) you are hurting people's current projects. Already existing, valuable lions will quickly decrease in value. Imagine having a project stat breeding, hunting females for real life months than having them become unusable (i.e. as you said up to a 30% stat reduction during breeding), after all of that work. It hardly seems fair. Unless it were began with a grandfathering in rule (i.e. only starts to affect lions born after a certain date) 2. Many lions lose their lineage. When a parent or grandparent dies if you don't add them to your Pride or King Dynasty than they are no longer listed in bloodlines, thus removing this feature. So one could easily work around it (inbreed, patrol or do whatever you need, than kill or wait until the shared parent dies. No more inbreeding). As has also been stated before, but I will repeat, as it is also my own opinion, this feels like forcing people to play the way a subset want to play. Lioden is charming as it has so many play styles. Breed for stats, mutations, markings, bases, etc, it is your choice. Implementing this would force people to play a style, whether they want to or not. Which hardly seems fair to me. If you want to play hard mode, go for it. For example people breed for stats, yet it does not heavily impact the game. Mutations or marks do not change the game. Why should this play style? What I can think of, as a suggestion would be to make this optional (i.e. have inbreeding mechanics as an option that people can choose whether or not to have affect their game). Instead of forcing it onto people. That is just my two cents. 0 players like this post! Like? |
SlashNHack (#102040)
Kind View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 13:29:17 |
*points out small problem* What about those prides that were decended from the king and one lioness? 0 players like this post! Like? |
Ankokou (#3124)
Merciful View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 14:30:02 |
Look, forgive me if I overlooked this as I didn't read all 16 pages of this but in addition to the points already made, I'm concerned with fairness. Not the issue that, if this is done, someone inattentive to the new rules could loose a cub to an expensive stud in a new breeding but what happens to existing lions? What about that 50 GB stat heir or that rare marked lioness descended from a raffle lady, both inbred to hell for their respective reasons. Suddenly a lion that was extremely valuable that you've already paid tons for and perhaps even owned for a few months and put even more money/effort into is going to be throwing stillborn cubs or whatever the decided upon penalty. Or, if it's grandfathered in and existing lions' cubs are fine, those cubs will still inherit those issues and therefor be less valuable. Any lions people thought they could breed as an investment will be worth significantly less, I assume, if their cubs have the issues bypassed in them. So people would essentially be penalized for having not played the game a specific way up until this was added, when it's always been an open "do what you want" before. I'm not opposed to inbreeding penalties as a concept and actually from a development perspective really like most of the ideas outlined in this post. If they had been part of the game earlier on with some changes to prevent people bypassing them I would welcome the challenge and they may have had an impact on the issues going on today. But adding them in now both feels too late and unfair to make such significant changes. 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 03/04/17 @ 21:37:33 by Ankokou (#3124) |
Hekata (SFD) (#84603)
Usual View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 16:06:45 |
I'm sorry but I also did not support this suggestion, for all the reason stated already. I'm both a looks and stat breeder although more so a stats breeder. I already spend a ton of SB daily ( over 1k a day most of the time) hunting, never mind the items and gb ( some of which I have purchased with my own money) use to breed to LB kings. To lose even one cub from a littler, for me, would be a waste of the time, effort and planning I already put in to the game. I don't really understand why so many people, including the admins, fell stats need to be controlled or are such an issue, there are more people on the game that breed for looks than hard core stat breeders ( most of the stat Cubs I sell arnt even patrolled or hunted at all) Stat breeding is already obtainable for anyone who wishes to do the same if they want to do it. I'm not sure why we should be penalized for setting timers and breeding to the lb studs We choose to use. I have only played this game for a little over a year, started out with nothing like everyone else and worked my way up to where I am. Playing the stat game is how I prefer to spend my time on Lioden, I like the challenge and love seeing the progress, it's not for everyone I get that, this game is after all, I feel, is based on personal preference. There is already a poll up that will if implemented will add additional limits on the intake of egg yolks ( males can only consume 20 yolks a day as is, and on average a yolk give like 1.7 stats per) . On the flip side to that, it doesn't really take much to be a mutie breeder, all someone has to do is give their lioness ( and in most cases Kings will get balls) items that are obtainable from events or the oasis to increase the odds of mutations, and your suggestion only adds to making it easier to obtain lethals. Having an infertile lioness isn't really a penalty, they can still be bred with black stallions or chastberry or as someone else said using a Vuca. As for the looks aspect; it took me a while to breed my skyward king with the marking I preferred him to have. I didn't breed him for anyone else to use if they dnt want to, I bred him because that's what I want my king to look like so he can pass on his marks and base ( although that doesn't happen that often) because that is what I like. I dnt sell many of my Cubs ( I let them die most of the time) and keep for my pride the ones I like. If I want to incorporate a marking I might want in my pride, I look for ones that are for sale. Some markings are already limited in what's available and in what slot. If something like this was implemented, I would not only have to spend SB/gb where I didn't want to or suffer the consequences, I would have to breed to a king that doesn't necessarily have everything I'm looking for for marks, like how I think my king does, again personal preference. In short I like being able to choose how I spend my time on Lioden, not everyone is going to like the same markings or bases that I do. I don't want to have to spend extra time looking for the perfect stud, which to me is already my king that took a while to get him, pay them to stud or get either a stat reduction or rare lethal ( which I dnt even care about), were I wouldn't have to if I just used to me what is perfect king already, for Cubs that aren't going to make it into the market anyway because they are just there for me to look at in the first place. This game is very user specific and is played how the indivdual person chooses to do so with the time they get away from their RL. Making something tedious, takes the enjoyability away from it. Anyway just my 12 cents on the matter! Little redundant considering all the other comments so sorry for that! 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 04/04/17 @ 04:36:46 by Hekata #DreamTeam (#84603) |
Lenora LaVey [TriRos Sunset] (#86381) Holy View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-03 21:49:43 |
I clicked no support because yeah, I believe not supporting this suggestion is to my benefit (why would I vote against my own interests), for reasons that Heda Redbox has enunciated very well. I don't know how many of you guys are aiming to breed 1. leaderboard lions or 2. leopons (and also dwarves). The market for stats is terrible right now. I see lionesses at around 2k stats going for dirt cheap, when the cost of breeding to Meliodas (pretty much the only way to get 2k birth stats) is already 45 GB. Factor in the Buffalo Scrote for maximising the cubs, and if your lions don't sell... And also consider leopon breedings. Reverse studdings go for 40 GB a pop, if not more, especially when you factor in 20 Yohimbe Barks per breeding. If a litter was miscarried because of inbreeding I would scream my head off. Sure, there are thousands of studs in total on Lioden, but favoured markings and bases in different permutations can make the field narrower for a lot of us. Maybe your intention was not to punish, but this implementation would definitely benefit one side and not another. Those who love muties (and I count myself among them) would inbreed to take advantage of the increased chances for lethals, which are highly prized. In the meantime, people who slog their ass off IRL and on here to scrape together stud fees or GB for breeding items run the risk of losing litters just because they are trying to get the most out of their dollars. Yes, I want to get as many stats as I can out of my breedings if I'm dropping real cash on the fees and items. So yeah, my main point really is: no thanks, I really don't want to waste money and effort when I pay for breedings and breeding items with GB I paid for. Also - I don't find Lioden a particularly realistic game. It's unrealistic in a number of ways actually. Trying to bring realism to the table with a mechanic that punishes groups of people in favour of the concerns of some really doesn't seem like a good idea. 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 04/04/17 @ 04:51:49 by Vicious Vissy (#86381) |
Berenos|On hiatus (#84593)
Resurgent View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-04 00:37:17 |
Posted my reasoning as to why this would be needed, and I added a "Frequently made comments" section too, so everyone can have their issues and concerns over this replied to without me having to struggle to keep up with every new player than comes here. To answer those of you that protest that Lioden doesn't have to be realistic, I agree. I doesn't have to. But it is inspired in real life animals, issues, ect., so I don't think there is nothing wrong if I take something from real life and try to adapt it to the game. And really, even if Lioden isn't, stricktly speaking, a breeding sim, one of its main features is breeding. It wouldn't be so farfetched to add to it. Again, this isn't me trying to force my way of playing on everyone, but suggesting what I thought was a reasonable idea to solve a pressing issue many players are demanding it get solved, which revolves around the breeding market as a whole. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Hekata (SFD) (#84603)
Usual View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-04 02:01:09 |
This would ruin the game for stat breeders: Right now, there is no limiting feature for the stats, but the amount of time, the effort and the amount of allies one has, which means the market is controlled by a handful of players. This isn't meant to take away all their effort, but to make it so that they need to reach out for others to keep on with their breeding, and thus evening the field, slowly. I was just wondering if you could elaborate on this a little more? I guess I just don't understand your reasoning? If I'm reading this right what your saying is the reason the stat market is controlled by a handful of players is because of the amount of time, effort they put into their lion and amount of allies( I'm assuming your talking about pair patrolling/hunting). What I don't understand is what is stopping/preventing other people to do the same thing and putting in the time, the effort and finding their own allies or "reaching out to others" to achieve those same goals, especially where you saying there's no limiting of stats as it is, which would make it possible for everyone to achieve, right? People have breeding partners or allies for marks, bases and mutations, why should stats be any different? They trust each other enough to work together to achieve that goal. And once again, stat breeders ( actually everyone really) would be forced to interact with or reach out to other people if they do not want to. It's not really controlled either, a new high stat king can come up in the ranks at any time, it just takes time, a lot of it to get there. Why is it that the people, who have spent the time, probably close to a year, and started before someone else to achieve that goal is creating a monopoly when no one is forcing anyone to even breed with them at all or even care about stats for that matter. Just like no one is forcing me to care about mutations like other people do? I guess my point is the playing field is already even for people who choose to put the time and effort into it. One would think that people would be happy that 2k-2.5k stat Cubs are more readily available at lower costs, especially where most are happy with kings being in that stat range and choose not to patrol to add the extra stats. 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 04/04/17 @ 09:05:06 by Hekata #DreamTeam (#84603) |
JAX • [3.12.21|MAZI nRLC+ 👑] (#98288) Divine View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-04 02:05:18 |
Heda Vampiric (#56702)
Prophet View Forum Posts Posted on 2017-04-04 02:06:11 |
I honestly feel that while you don't see it as pushing how you play onto others, it's very clear that it's giving others the impression that you are. I've argued my points several times, as you've argued yours (although some of mine are still not answered as they require an experienced coder). 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 04/04/17 @ 09:57:40 by Heda RedBox (#56702) |