Improving quality

[Gaiadin]

I'm sorry you're about to get flamed.

[niltrias]

Eh*2. Ok, I guess.
Seriously, my previous post clearly mentioned spawn points being determined by the level of wilderness. That is the same as they are now.
Mordor points have been discussed in another thread.
flame away.

[Jackard]

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.

kind of like trees huh. could you please think about what you post

[kimya]

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.

i like that, it would add a whole new level to hunting...

[Jackard]

facepalm.jpg

this forum

[niltrias]

kind of like trees huh. could you please think about what you post

I am overcome by the logic and wit of your post.

[Jackard]

questions of immersion aside (cultivating wild animals and eventually monsters, what the flying fuck?) we've already seen stewardship in action and we already know just how well it doesnt work