RNG kills the fun

[Granger]

It was changed quite a while ago. No more averaging, each stat randomly selects father's or mother's stat and then applies the -5/+20 to it (still softcapped by father's breeding). In this particular case it picked mother for quality and father for breeding.

*edit*
Relevant announcement

Which is:

Implemented Potjeh's breeding idea. Instead of baby animals using an average of their parents' qualities when determining their own stats, they now select the value from one or the other parent, before adding a bit of a random roll as usual. The objective being to create more selective breeding.

You monster.

How should that help with selective breeding? The possible combinations boil down to having to brute-force it as before since the chance to get the combination you want is 1/16 (when ignoring the quantities).

[Potjeh]

You breed separate lines for one stat + breeding, then you combine them to get a hybrid good in all stats. Or just breed one stat then trade studs with neighbours that are breeding different stats. I'm going for milk quality on cows, wool quantity on sheep, metabolism on horses, truffle snout on pigs and milk quantity on goats. But even if you want just one stat it's faster than averaging parents. In this instance you got a bad roll and got mother's quality, but you had an equal chance of getting father's quality so the next baby from those two could have base 34 quality instead of base 22 ((34 + 10) / 2).

Still waiting on livestock credos, though.

[Granger]

I also noticed that the first four went all down.

My impression hasn't changed: the game, through the use of RNG, forces me to brute force animals by giving me the option to either have a way too big heard for me hermit or keeping only reasonable amounts of animals which will likely end me with q1 ones.

Meh.

[Potjeh]

You're four times more likely to see an increase rather than decrease on any individual stat, so yeah, that was just exceptionally bad luck on that baby. It's very unlikely you'll see that often. My livestock credos suggestion would fix the RNG bruteforcing, but I guess many people wouldn't want to do even more questing.

[Granger]

A hard cap on the reductions, to keep them from degrading an animal below 10, would make sense. Because wouldn't I have played this as long as I already do I would have simply alt+F4'd the game and removed it from my system.

[loftar]

To be fair, I don't think one instance of extraordinarily bad luck is that strong an argument against the whole system. However, I do also agree that making animal breeding somewhat more intelligent of a process than keeping a CAFO would be nice. Somewhat considering some kind of animal "questing" (loosely used term, not necessarily related to the formal questing system) in the background.

[stya]

Please not more quests

Or at least fix the balance of the quest requests and/or reduce their RNG

[Granger]

To be fair, I don't think one instance of extraordinarily bad luck is that strong an argument against the whole system.

From the perspective that this was the first animal born to me (the male was a gift) this world I am, even after being dulled from all these years of being violated by your various 'fun' game mechanics, quite pissed.

Would I be a new player you would very likely have lost at minimum one customer, if not more by the word of don't play this @*#¶π&£! spreading.

A game needs to be fun (else RL is more interesting), 'here is your first little animal, it is even worse than what you started with' isn't.

[NeoRed9]

Very infantile post. Who hasn't heard of a runt of a litter. You can't have good animals without bad ones.

[Lojka]

i like this breeding system

it is better balanced that just parents avrg.

you get bad horse for breeding -> you get bad stats, all fair
next time will get better stats