Hunting as a Project

General out-of-character discussion among players of Cantr II.

Moderators: Public Relations Department, Players Department

Do you approve of project-based hunting?

Yes
29
69%
No (please explain why below)
13
31%
 
Total votes: 42
User avatar
Genevieve
Posts: 2114
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA
Contact:

Postby Genevieve » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:15 pm

Peanut wrote:
Either the RD will reassess the meat recepies or the meat gained from hunting is increased. Anyway if people in other towns can support themselves by harvesting stuff like rye and making bread. What's wrong with instead of a rye harvest project a hunting project?


Most of those places ALSO have the ability to hunt - and generally have some infrastructure in place to only live off of bread for example - since you need to gather wheat, grind it, gather wood, bake it IN AN OVEN.

Vs making a small fire place or drying rack and cooking - much much much simpler. I have one character who when he first spawned in a place where there were only two people (one of whom was a sleeper, the other was a traveler) - nobody offered him food. I was afraid he was going to starve! Lucky for him he was an okay hunter and was able to get meat fast enough to not die before it was cooked but man...it was an iffy thing for a while, especially as several newspawns came along right after and wanted food too! I think all we are asking is, if you are going to change this, think about those sorts of situations and make sure that it is POSSIBLE to make enough food before starving from a project like this.
User avatar
Piscator
Administrator Emeritus
Posts: 6843
Joined: Sun Jul 02, 2006 4:06 pm
Location: Known Space

Postby Piscator » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:31 pm

I doubt a hunting project plus cooking would take you more than twenty days, so it should be pretty improbable that you starve while waiting for your meat to be ready.

Everything else is again a matter of rebalancing the meat output per animal.
Pretty in pink.
User avatar
Genevieve
Posts: 2114
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA
Contact:

Postby Genevieve » Tue Aug 25, 2009 11:39 pm

Piscator wrote:I doubt a hunting project plus cooking would take you more than twenty days, so it should be pretty improbable that you starve while waiting for your meat to be ready.

Everything else is again a matter of rebalancing the meat output per animal.


Hunting + possibly making the small fire, then drying dung, THEN Cooking....may not take 20 days, but if you haven't eaten you do eat more. It can be touch and go there doing anything BUT hunting/making food for a while.
User avatar
*Wiro
Posts: 5855
Joined: Mon Sep 29, 2008 1:24 pm

Postby *Wiro » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:35 am

Piscator wrote:He was asking for constructive criticism and also announced that posts can and will be deleted (like this one probably). Wiro was merely stating that he doesn't have an opinion yet (I hope I remember that right) so I don't see the problem with removing it to keep the thread concise.


I don't know the exact words anymore, but saying that a poll is not useful at this point because it's hard to decide on a yes or no without knowing the details (like with the whispering, many people were fine with it only after a few suggested changes), seems to be hardly worth a removal. And if things like do not add to the discussion then I don't want to bother with the details anymore and so I voted no.
Read about my characters by following this link.
Cogliostro
Posts: 766
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 8:05 pm

Postby Cogliostro » Wed Aug 26, 2009 12:56 am

I think the idea is a definite improvement on the current way we have. Voted for it. Some related ideas that have occured to me:

- Should we remove the ability to hunt specific animals? You start a hunting project and return home after some hours with a random selection of what you were able to catch.

- Remove random animal attacks on people. They're unrealistic and very silly. Instead, if a location has predators, then there should be a chance that anyone trying to hunt will be wounded by them.

- Get rid of animal migration and any other useless stuff like that which eats up server ticks. Use a simpler system which doesn't bother counting each individual animal, and people can't see what animals are there, unless they go hunting. If they do, they are told: "You kill a toucan. You kill a wolf." etc., but not the total number and kind of available animals.
User avatar
Dudel
Posts: 3302
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:21 am

Postby Dudel » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:32 am

I just wanna see SOMETHING implemented within Cantr that will have an ACTUAL EFFECT on the FREAKING GAME!

Dudel says: "Worry about "tweaking" later and just go for broke now!"
User avatar
Rebma
Posts: 2899
Joined: Tue Aug 12, 2008 6:47 am
Location: Kitchener, ON

Postby Rebma » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:37 am

Cogliostro wrote: people can't see what animals are there, unless they go hunting. If they do, they are told: "You kill a toucan. You kill a wolf." etc., but not the total number and kind of available animals.
:( But I want wool to make purdy clothes.

Anyways, I agree with what Wiro originally said before his post was so kindly removed, although I'm not as harsh with it. I don't see the point of posting for opinions on something that has literally no details to it, other than it'd become a project. This leads to people internally speculating, and voting based on an internal picture that could lead to disappointment.

As someone asked earlier, things like how long it takes, what you'd get if you didn't finish it, whether you can chose the animals hunted, et cetera...These are things you guys should at least be pre-emptively testing the waters with, if you're going to ask for opinions.

In regards to your poll, I'm a non-voter, who will probably slide to yes if I could just be a little more informed about such change (other than imagining it in my head once/if domest. comes along, since I'm sure this would make things more realistic in some aspects, and more functional)
kronos wrote:like a nice trim is totally fine. short, neat. I don't want to be fighting through the forests of fangorn and expecting treebeard to come and show me the way in
User avatar
Doug R.
Posts: 14857
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Doug R. » Wed Aug 26, 2009 1:25 pm

Thank you to those of you who managed to address the topic. Please keep your concerns coming. This topic is a reference tool for myself and those working on the project. Every post that appears that does not directly address the topic is a distraction, and I will kill it. Trolling, tangents, off topic posts, etc are what derail countless ideas from ever seeing the light of day. I've had enough. This is my thread and I won't tolerate it when I'm seriously trying to work. Go start another thread and complain about me.

I stated in the first post that the poll was unscientific. To those of you who think I'm retarded and can't craft a poll, you're mistaken. It's telling me exactly what I wanted to know. Telling me otherwise is off-topic.

Rebma19 wrote:I don't see the point of posting for opinions on something that has literally no details to it, other than it'd become a project.


Because without details, people will immediately assume the worst, which is exactly what is happening and what I intended to happen.

Now, back on topic...
Hamsters is nice. ~Kaylee, Firefly
tiddy ogg
Posts: 1402
Joined: Sun Oct 02, 2005 8:53 pm
Location: Southampton, England
Contact:

Postby tiddy ogg » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:06 pm

Normally I dislike any change, especially any slowing things down, but I voted yes, and trust that indeed other changes will be implemented so as not to disadvantage the subsistence hunters.
User avatar
Caesar
Posts: 1328
Joined: Sun May 31, 2009 2:45 am
Location: The Netherlands, Europe, Earth, Sol, The Milkyway, Our Galaxy, Time & Space

Postby Caesar » Wed Aug 26, 2009 3:11 pm

I voted 'no'. I simply want to see it worked out some more before I think it should be implemented.

I do not want to have to 'trust' that it will be okay.
I want to know ahead of time.
- Every person lost in war is two too many.
- Respect comes from two sides and must be earned. Nobody has the right to it because of a title, sex, age, race or birth.
- What doesn't kill you makes you stronger.
- I believe in True Love, do you?
User avatar
Doug R.
Posts: 14857
Joined: Wed Mar 23, 2005 6:56 pm
Contact:

Postby Doug R. » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:15 pm

tiddy ogg wrote:There have been far too many animals around in the last year or so. There was a time when food was a useful trade good, but then the animal population grew enormously, even in inhospitable regions and killed off that business model.


Interesting point of view to consider. Too much food if we overbalance.
Hamsters is nice. ~Kaylee, Firefly
User avatar
Genevieve
Posts: 2114
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2003 5:31 pm
Location: Palm Springs, CA
Contact:

Postby Genevieve » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:36 pm

Doug R. wrote:
tiddy ogg wrote:There have been far too many animals around in the last year or so. There was a time when food was a useful trade good, but then the animal population grew enormously, even in inhospitable regions and killed off that business model.


Interesting point of view to consider. Too much food if we overbalance.


But this is not the case everywhere. I have one character who is constantly crossing their fingers - hoping that the animal population maintains - because there are less than 6 animals and several are only 2 each....none more than 5 I think right now.
Andu
Posts: 685
Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 5:29 pm
Location: Finland

Postby Andu » Wed Aug 26, 2009 7:37 pm

Yes, if some more food projects are semi-automated.
"An those with little fuel, could tie a pack of bears in front of their limousine, with whip and crossbow in hands to keep them in line."
User avatar
SumBum
Posts: 1903
Joined: Fri Jan 05, 2007 10:57 pm

Postby SumBum » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:04 pm

Cogliostro wrote:- Should we remove the ability to hunt specific animals? You start a hunting project and return home after some hours with a random selection of what you were able to catch.


Definitely disagree with this idea. There are towns/cultures that hold certain animals in high esteem and it would be devastating if they went hunting blindly and returned having killed a revered animal.

- Remove random animal attacks on people. They're unrealistic and very silly. Instead, if a location has predators, then there should be a chance that anyone trying to hunt will be wounded by them.


I'm not sure how this is unrealistic. If I'm in an area with wild boars, I doubt they'd think I wasn't a threat simply because I hadn't attacked them first. I love the more hostile islands, even though I've lost several characters to animal attacks on those islands.
I don't know karate, but I know KA-RAZY!! - James Brown
User avatar
Dudel
Posts: 3302
Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2008 5:21 am

Postby Dudel » Wed Aug 26, 2009 8:26 pm

Yeah the only thing I see "wrong" with this is the possible unbalancing of things (which are already a bit "unbalanced" opinion) but I do have faith that'll be fixed.

Return to “General Discussion”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest