Improving quality

[Delamore]

In my opinion, you should do away with the artificial system of creature levels altogether - it tends to make combat either frustrating or trivial and is not very immersive besides. This sort of change would go hand in hand with improving combat so that it focuses less on the skills of the individual and more on that of the group. A less grindy and LP dependent system.

Dangerous animals like boars, bears and wolves should always be dangerous, just in different ways; prey should be skittish instead of combative. Foxes should be the latter but also greedy for chicken. Some quarry should be so quick that you need dogs, bows or horses to hunt them down.

Agreed, but I may be selfish saying this and in wanting the best of both worlds. But I also enjoy being able to become ultra powerful with effort. I don't like the idea of even a single boss monster having more of an attribute than I could ever have. Which is one of the reasons H&H is the one mmorpg that has kept my attention.

"I can't find friends so I want to be able to do everything solo"
I want to see shit like cave trolls that takes multiple people to take it down.

[Jackard]

Multiplayer games are meant to be played with friends, go play a single player game if you want to solo and save the world (yawn)

[jorb]

I wouldn't really mind getting rid of the creature levels, I don't think they do what they're supposed to do atm. I do, however, also want the game to have character development.

[Jackard]

There should be development, just not in the manner there is now.

You could have the proposed quest system open up combat abilities, weapon proficiencies, buffs, manuevers, alignment-like traits that offer both advantages/disadvantages should you opt for them. dont forget fep attributes and equipment quality can also be used to make bruisers. there are many ways to offer development without it being a hollow grind consisting of pushing quarters into the coin slot

[niltrias]

I think that some aspects of the animal level system could be profitably kept, especially if development were added. If an animal grows up undernourished, it is going to have less meat on it, be of smaller size, more prone to disease, and weaker. Animals that grow up in more hospitable enviroments will tend to be the opposite.
If animal ages were added, we would see over-hunting and over-logging create areas where wild animals are non-existent, or killed as soon as they are large enough to eat. On the other hand, if an area is protected by a gameskeeper and hunting is kept in check, animals would grow bigger and more healthy. Fighting a huge, well-fed from birth bear is going to be more challenging (and give more LPs) than fighting a scrawny runt of a half-gown bear with asthma. And the meat would be more nourishing as well. (more FEP)
It could be argued that humans feeding the animals would make them weaker, because they dont have to work as hard to stay alive. On the other hand, gameskeepers back to at least the middle ages would leave out fodder for the deer during particularly hard winters, which helped deer maintain their population without "taming" them.

[Cain]

The idea of tending or "growing" wild animals strikes me as ridiculous, as well as a terrible idea. One of the reasons I hunt more than I farm is because I greatly prefer the feel of it. If we have to feed and groom and protect the population (just to kill it?) hunting will be the exact same thing as farming but the plants will walk around. I agree that it would be great to implement this sort of system in order to allow for the taming of cows, sheep,rabbits, and maybe frogs/rats. *But not for "wild" animals we hunt!*

Obviously the level based system of hunting is somewhat flawed, but at least in it's most general interpretation it is fine. I really like the fact that I have to sail out into the wilderness a ways in order to find lv 10 bears. It gives a distinct feeling of "wilderness" and allows people such as myself to pursue a hunting/exploring style of play.

And I think everyone would like to see harder animals/creatures As soon as you have a half decent combat skill level you are completely safe from all "dangerous" wildlife.

[Delamore]

As annoying as it is that Wurm is always bought up in discussion suggestions, Wurms older system actually worked quite well.
An animal spawns based on a tile type (Like haven) and is at the "young" age, over time it will get older and stronger giving more skill gain when you kill it (LP)
When it is killed it spawns somewhere else in the game(This would use the super grid rather than the whole game).
What this leads to is over time the creatures in a supergrid will slowly group up at the lesser hunted areas and age there.

[niltrias]

As annoying as it is that Wurm is always bought up in discussion suggestions, Wurms older system actually worked quite well.
An animal spawns based on a tile type (Like haven) and is at the "young" age, over time it will get older and stronger giving more skill gain when you kill it (LP)
When it is killed it spawns somewhere else in the game(This would use the super grid rather than the whole game).
What this leads to is over time the creatures in a supergrid will slowly group up at the lesser hunted areas and age there.

This would work. Although 3 points:
1) I would like to see a limited amount of (quite difficult) human interaction. Maybe, for example, 1-3 instances of human intervention helps, but more makes them weaker. Too much feeding the deer and they get slow and complacent.
2) Civ could still have an effect on the max level of the critter. Spawn points are always in a certain level of wild, for example.
3) I still like my mordor points idea, which raiser the wild level in the same way that idols, for example, lower it.

[Delamore]

As annoying as it is that Wurm is always bought up in discussion suggestions, Wurms older system actually worked quite well.
An animal spawns based on a tile type (Like haven) and is at the "young" age, over time it will get older and stronger giving more skill gain when you kill it (LP)
When it is killed it spawns somewhere else in the game(This would use the super grid rather than the whole game).
What this leads to is over time the creatures in a supergrid will slowly group up at the lesser hunted areas and age there.

This would work. Although 3 points:
1) I would like to see a limited amount of (quite difficult) human interaction. Maybe, for example, 1-3 instances of human intervention helps, but more makes them weaker. Too much feeding the deer and they get slow and complacent.
2) Civ could still have an effect on the max level of the critter. Spawn points are always in a certain level of wild, for example.
3) I still like my mordor points idea, which raiser the wild level in the same way that idols, for example, lower it.

The reason I even wrote my response is because people were talking about how they did not like the idea of a player having to do any bullshit with feeding animals and crap.
Also I didn't mention actual spawn points, it would be the same "Spawn on forest" or "spawn on grass" thing we already have.

[niltrias]

Also I didn't mention actual spawn points, it would be the same "Spawn on forest" or "spawn on grass" thing we already have.

Eh, if you are talking about my spawn points mention, then we are talking about the same thing. If you are talking about my mordor points mention, you should check the threads a bit more.