Cantr II Discussion Forum

Since I became Shepherd, a friend of mine and I have been arguing heatedly over the very basic, fundamental, philosophical principle behind what an animal in Cantr should be. Since neither of us is budging on our positions and we've argued it ad nauseum, I thought I'd submit the debate to the jury of public opinion.

I realize the animal system is still out of whack; the part of the second option that states players should be partly responsible for animal conservation assumes that populations will eventually increase if the animals are left unmolested.

I'd say that animals should be animals, with the caveat that the shepherd should, some time after an extinction, introduce a new animal to fill the niche vacated by the previous one. Just drop a pair of the new species on a road somewhere.

It's not as simple as that. Long roads and terrain type restrictions make migrating very difficult in some places.
Sure, an island wide extinction hunting would (and should) have consequences, but... Hunting in a few areas should not be a problem and the herds should strive for a more even population density and be able to reproduce more when in fewer numbers just because there is so much empty land available.
So, in short I agree with both standpoints.

Conservation efforts are currently ineffective. Hunting bans are not showing enough increase. If there really is player control by location then it makes sense to start viewing animal populations in this way. But, animal products are resources like those we harvest and dig, with the added bonus of strength training. So restricting these too much while so many objects assume access to them (primitive tools, e.g.) is not worth any claims to realistic ecosystem.

Imo, providing more diverse resources to the heavily populated locations even at the expense of safety for the few chars spawned on places like Aki, Fu and Burgeo is completely reasonable. Culling them via limited reproduction to manage populations in locations with few chars hurts the majority unnecssarily.

Your poll doesn't include the option where it works.

sanchez wrote:Conservation efforts are currently ineffective. Hunting bans are not showing enough increase.

Before I killed my characters, any location I was in showed increases in populations when conservation was applied, provided that the number of animals wasn't already too far gone. Regardless, as I stated, the second poll option assumes that gains through conservation are attainable. I never said that reproduction rates are where they need to be for any animal, and it is assured that many will have to be raised.

sanchez wrote:But, animal products are resources like those we harvest and dig, with the added bonus of strength training. So restricting these too much while so many objects assume access to them (primitive tools, e.g.) is not worth any claims to realistic ecosystem.

I can argue that if animals were meant to be resources, then they would be gatherable like fish, but they're not. It can also be argued that any limitations that a lack of animals would impose is just as much a consequence of a lack of resource/project variety as it is a lack of animals. Why do you need sinew to make anything? String, rope, vines, or even bark would be a reasonable substitution. A club can be made out of wood. A shield already can be. A fur scraper could just as easily be made out of stone, as could a knife. Needles can be made from thorns or wood, but I see none of these things are in the game. Perhaps it was unwise to put so many projects in the hands of a system that is so seriously messed up and is also subject to the unpredictability of the players?

Stone axe requires sinew. This tools was designed for primitive populations, and was meant to help them progress. Currently too much of the primitive level technology, as well as the most effective foods assumes good access to animal products. There's a lot that will need to be changed if you want to continue with this. Cloth bellows was a minor fix.

Why protect a minority in this way? I have chars in the wild islands. One char saw 97 wild boars at the last tick and got bit twice. But there is a culture that develops around this hardship, and it is not a burden compared to my Cantr island char who relies on dung as her only fuel source.

Until you can manage the repercussions of limiting access to some crucial resources, please don't lower the populations. Conservation does not work yet.

is there any built-in populationcap for animals right now? I've seen whole hordes of elephants that could probably trample the entire population of certain islands to bits if they wanted to.

Some places are in a dire lack of animals, especially one of the swedish isles. Life there is not easy

I like the way it is now. The fact that some places have a difficult time getting some particular animal product just makes the game more interesting as chars struggle for that resource. Feathers or small bones or fur can become like rare treasures. I would like to see extinct animals reintroduced after a period of time, though. Pretend they were hiding in an isolated valley or swamp somewhere.

Also, any chance of domestication soon? How about putting an animal in a cage and transporting it from island to island?

I think animals should be as they are now, not resources. But as we all know, the system doesn't work well. It needs to be self balancing, but the current system doesn't do that effectively

Solfius, animals are a moveable resources, carrying eggs, meat, sinew, hide, etc.. Limiting their populations to extinction would be like removing carrots or onions. And hunting bans mean the only way to train strength is through fighting. This is more than a simple hardship. And if it's done to address animal overcrowding on islands with few or no people it doesn't seem worth it.

I think that human control of the population should be attainable. As it is now, if there is already a huge number of animals, it is impossible to get it under control. On the other side, if the population is low, it is impossible to get it back up. A move towards the middle should be made, with less reproduction at high population levels, and more at lower ones.

Yes. Animals are not scenery. Almost all birds have disappeared from the heavily populated English islands. This means all eggs and feathers. Eggs are superior healing food. I don't care if my Fu char sees 50 hawks if it means my Cantr char can see 10. We are losing them to these general adjustments. Lowering spawn rate for all hawks, e.g. based on the combined total number of the species in game for all locations is not trivial, and most harmful to exactly the places where chars actually live. That is not realism, it's silly.

Meh, it should be possible to gather feathers they drop naturally, and rob some nests to get eggs without having to kill the bird. Naturally if you took all the eggs, there would be no new birds...

Another thing, make physical strength affect and be developed by things it affects in real life, such as smithing, farming, all sorts of physical stuff.

On 1902, 900 more hawks were spawned than died of natural causes. 49 hawks were killed. Hawks are entirely healthy and increasing. I have been monitoring the hawks I seeded into the polish region, and they are doing splendidly.

If you can't see an increase in your location, it is probably because at 10% travel chance, hawks have one of the highest migration rates of all the animals. The vast majority of them are on the roads (much more than the 60% typically cited), and we all know how long the roads are in the English lands. Their high migration chance also means conservation efforts will have less of an impact, since the animals don't stay put. Hawks also have a broad terrain range, meaning they are diluted out all over the island, as opposed to be concentrated in fewer locations.

It is simply the long roads and terrain promiscuity that are keeping your hawk populations low, not a low reproductive rate.

Are you going to fix it?

How about we similarly introduce crop failure. Your onions will disappear because I think there are too many (mostly uninhabited) locations with them in game already. So, the resource should just dry up. There just shouldn't be too many onions. This change will be interesting. It will encourage trade and cooperation. And it's your fault anyway, because your roads are long and you farm too much.

Is this any different?