Health for Animals

[Lone Wolf]

I was just thinking, I can see what the health of other chars is like, but not the animals. It would be nice if we could see what an animals health is like, We could use something like the smiley face system just make it a different color or change it slightly. This could help when trying to kill those damn bears and wolves.
When there are more than one animal of a certain kind ie: 5 sheep, the health you see is for the one that will be hit next.

[Oasis]

Okay, I just voted yes, as it would be fun to see their health, but then I realized that this probably won't work. People will wait to hit them until their health is low, assuming they are hoping for the spoils. They won't want to waste their daily hit if they know it won't kill the animal. Well, if everyone did that, the animals would be much safer, I suppose.

[Snake_byte]

There are a lot of people who do that anyway.

[Gunther_01]

I voted yes.

It is, of course, possible to assess the physicle healthy state of an animal in real life, so why not in-game?

Maybe we could have the old sick and the weak thing happening. Like every now and then an animal will just have 50% strength because it's A)old and/or B)Sick.

[Pulpcatcher]

I also voted yes.

It makes sense to know which animals are weakest. When animals are in a herd it's the weakest that are the first to be killed by predators.

[Anthony Roberts]

I voted no.

In real life and in Cantr, you can tell the health of a person by looking at them. But in real life, you can't tell the health of an animal unless they're obviously hurt (Ripped off leg, blood everywhere, etc) - Animals, along side other bugs, attempt to hide their injuries from others and suck it up, so that predators do not see them as easy prey. That way, they have an easier chance of living.

The only exception to this is domestic animals, which want a human to help them out by whimpering. Last time I checked, there were no Dogs and Cats in the game

[Lone Wolf]

I beg to differ with you Anthony. As a hunter, I can tell if an animal was hurt by a weapon, weather it be a bow, gun, or a trap. Even a hunting bow that is in the game, would cause enough damage that you can tell. now let say you just hit a bear, and got 20 % I think it wouldn't "Seem strong" but "Ill" maybe. But once an animal has only 20% left, You can tell. That is near death. So in real life you can tell the health of an animal

[Anthony Roberts]

I beg to differ with you Anthony. As a hunter, I can tell if an animal was hurt by a weapon, weather it be a bow, gun, or a trap. Even a hunting bow that is in the game, would cause enough damage that you can tell. now let say you just hit a bear, and got 20 % I think it wouldn't "Seem strong" but "Ill" maybe. But once an animal has only 20% left, You can tell. That is near death. So in real life you can tell the health of an animal

I agree with the animal being down near nothing health. That's obvious. Anyone could see the animal was hurt then. But if he's just been shot with a single arrow, for instance, depending on the animal they could hide it quite well and stay out of danger. It isn't until the trained Hunter, be it animal or human, comes and notices the damage already done to make the beast easy prey.

To make another point... how many characters are hunters? Exactly. If everyone were a hunter, they wouldn't be deceived by the animals act. But not many people are. They're government officals, town guardsmen, persuasive merchants... etc. Everyone has their own profession.

But seeing as how Cantr can't determine your profession (Yet ) - then I guess my argument falls on deaf ears.

[nitefyre]

Point 1:

People must seriously stop making the poll option: "Who Cares" or "I dunno." If they've got nothing to attribute to the topic, I think you ought just abstein from voting. There's no contribution in having lame poll options.

Point 2:

I concur with AnThony, and supporters' attitude-there will be no positive contribution to having people know when an animal is to be killed off. It will not help to have people be their selfish, greedy and spoiled self waiting around for the actual goods of a dead animal. As Anthony was also stating, and I do agree with, these Cantrians have professions outside of hunting, and they wouldn't be real experts at judging animals which they would all get the ability to do.

Point 3:

I wouldn't mind if animal parts fell to the ground- when they died. These animals that are hunted are killed around the location, not on the person who's hunting. It should be the hunter who should pick it up- as in real life.

[Nosajimiki]

In response to the three previous points:
1:
despite the assinine nature of titleing a vote "Who Cares" or "I dunno", it does give valuable fedback in the nature that people simply don't believe a sugestion would have an important impact on the game, this kind of vote puts things more into the programmers hands because it lets them know that if they want to see it happen they can do it without pissing players off, but if they don't feel like expending the effort to make it happen ,they are less obliged to do it under the false presumtion that a large number of people think it to be important.
2:
It probly will be an in-game issue that people will try to snag kills, but as before metioned that happens already, but to say it is unrealilistic to beable to guess the health of a wounded animal visualy is absurd. I'm personally not a hunter, but I can tell if a wild animal has been beaten within inches of it's life. If an animal is "sick" that's one thing, but these are stabing/slashing/blunt-trama weapons that are being used to kill them.
Now if your hunting skill had someithing to do with the accuracy of determination of injuries, that I think would be alright. (IE: a awkward hunter would see an animal as either healthy or wounded ,> or < 50%, health, whereas, an expert might be able to assess it's injuries to a ~17% increment[healthy, unwell, hurt, wounded, maimed, dieing].)