1 |
|
---|---|
Posted by | Litter number tweaks! |
ævi (#10196) Phoenix View Forum Posts Posted on 2024-10-12 18:45:02 |
Myself and several other players are frustrated with the amount of cubs that typically come from a natural (not influenced by buffalo balls or GoP) litter. As of writing this, I have six pregnant lionesses and not a single one of them are having more than one cub. I know it's bad luck, but it is incredibly frustrating to put forward so much SB and/or GB for so little return. If we want to get into the realism side of things, lionesses in the wild can have up to 6 (rarely, 7) cubs, with 2-3 being the average. Sources: https://cbs.umn.edu/lion-research-center/all-about-lions/frequently-asked-questions https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/lion https://lionalert.org/lion-reproduction-offspring/ I'm not saying that we should bump up the max litter to six, but I think a tweak to what litter sizes are more common/uncommon would be incredibly less discouraging, slightly more realistic, still balanced, and friendlier to those of us who don't hoard enough GB to shell out for buffy balls year-round. The bare bones of what I'm suggesting is this: 2 cubs - Most common 3 cubs - Less common but still not unattainable 1 cub - Less common than both of the above. Metaphorically, the spot on the spinning wheel you really don't want the needle to land on 4 cubs - Least common of all of them, but perhaps slightly less hard to achieve than it is now? Visually, something like this: Please give me your suggestions on how to make this better!! And if you don't support, please say why! |
☆ R0V3R☆ (#417822) Aztec Knight View Forum Posts Posted on 2024-10-12 19:49:53 |
(personal opinion here! not meant to be an attack) i too feel this way however i feel like theres a certain aspect of the game which needs to just stay as it is. As this is a simulator game a good percentage of what this has to offer is the actual luck aspect itself. Which is fun on its own. If you make everything easy and preferable for everyone, wheres the fun? wheres the challenge? There needs to be certain aspects in the game that stay as is to ensure users will continue playing and find reasons to keep playing, such as, the events (Which are tweaked every year), training, hunting, the quests, games etc! If you make everything pay to win or easy than theres going to be little to no gameplay on this site. Overall if you dont want to waste less sb than stop doing ultrasounds, east fix rlly. In my opinion it wastes so much sb and its the only reason ppl feel discouraged. Let luck decide and itll make u more keen for rollover too! this topic has been curated and talked ab several times but ppl have all come to the same kind of conclusion that is, on a wider spectrum, itll just make the game less intriguing. So in all respect its a no support 0 players like this post! Like? |
ævi (#10196)
Phoenix View Forum Posts Posted on 2024-10-12 20:08:20 |
I wouldn't necessarily say that 2 cubs is "easy" as I tend to have the same amount of luck with 2 cub litters as I do 1. and I'm not really sure where you got "pay to win"? Trying to get anything to pass already feels somewhat P2W to me as if you're not splurging on Buffy's or just having insane luck then you're just SOL 90% of the time. Even if nothing else gets touched, I think it'd be worth it to at least boost the chance of 2 cub litters. Because having 6+ lionesses all having just a single cub is, frankly, ridiculous. I talked to someone earlier today that had 12+ pregnant lionesses. You know how many of them were having 2 cub litters? Two. Calling the game a simulator is a bit of a stretch, imo. Sure, we're playing as lions in Africa but as far as real world simulations go, the similarities tend to stop there. If you want the game to be a simulation, having lionesses birth a realistic amount of cubs would bring it closer to that. As for ultrasounding, I've gone without them before and I really can't say that not knowing how many cubs I was having made me feel any different than knowing. Most of the cubs were fodder and ended up killed, and the others were treed. My point about the SB isn't how much was being spent. It's how little we get back in return. 1 player likes this post! Like? |
mewflakes (#88492)
View Forum Posts Posted on 2024-10-12 20:10:14 |
as far as i'm aware, we don't actually know the percentages for each litter size? just that 1-2 is most common and 4 is the rarest. how would you know that this suggestion is any different than the current rng? 0 players like this post! Like? Edited on 12/10/24 @ 20:14:19 by mewflakes (#88492) |
ævi (#10196)
Phoenix View Forum Posts Posted on 2024-10-12 20:38:35 |
Because as it stands, 2 cubs is rarer than 1 cub. Thus, this suggestion is different. 0 players like this post! Like? |
☆ R0V3R☆ (#417822) Aztec Knight View Forum Posts Posted on 2024-10-12 21:04:35 |
if you have the same amount of luck with 2 cubs compared to 1 than whats the point of changing it than? i dont understand how this works with the amount of unknown factors such as the actual rng percentages, its quite frankly useless. Its rng its in the name. I have 13 giving birth this ro and i have 7 litters of 2 out of the 13, it just doesnt work 0 players like this post! Like? |
ævi (#10196)
Phoenix View Forum Posts Posted on 2024-10-13 11:34:21 |
The quality of the cubs isn't the issue. The point would be to broaden the RNG chance for plain births so that there's not as much pressure to use items, so that we wouldn't be resigned to 1-cub potato litters a majority of the time. 3-cub litters don't need to be as rare as they are and 4-cub litters don't need to be near unobtainable without buffy balls. 0 players like this post! Like? |
1 |
---|