Creature deed protection

[Derp 310]

Kill off more animals so you can breed and store more animals...Yeah...

It's fine how it is

[MasterGeldrin 0]

For the wilders who say that the current breeding problems on freedom don't affect wild.

You're partially right. But also oh so very wrong.

The only reasons it doesn't affect you guys as much is A) Raiding Lower player count.

If wild is the intended style of gameplay for wurm, then eventually Wild should be aspiring to have as many players there as Freedom does. And if you have as many players there then you will eventually reach the issue we have here.

I don't think either Wild style or Freedom style is "intended" one for Wurm. These are two different servers, two different worlds.

That said - why Freedom problems should affect Wild? No one on Wild deserves to suffer because players tend to make huge horse farms on freedom and, because of no pvp, almost none of the horses die

Vice versa, if, say,Wild had the problem with uh...I don't know, ships. And all ships were about to be removed because they, say, could break the whole pvp on Wild, do you think that the same should be applied on Freedom, ruining its ship market just because the other server has a problem?

You miss the point I was making littlebear.

Breeding and in turn population control is on a slippery slope because it is not self balancing. Just because a problem can be delayed or masked does not mean the problem no longer exists. It just means the inevitable is being delayed.

Just because its not an issue for you on wild -right this second- doesn't mean it will never be an issue, so I'm with MrB on this one. Fixing breeding/pop cap issues should be a basecode thing not a serverbased thing.

[Derp 310]

What's stopping people hoarding non-venerable animals?

The problem will appear again once people have bred for a few days

[As_I_Decay 1,592]

Animals should die of old age. Period. So the cycle can renew itself. It will also make breeding more necessary, instead of a one time path.

I agree that all animals should die from age eventually, aggro and non. Especially on Freedom, where the land locks animals to be never seen by players.

Is being required to breed, and replace your best steed really such a hassle?

Considering that my personal (venerable) riding horse was the 4th or 5th generation... yeah, it takes a while to replace your best steed. RL months. If we're going to start killing them off by age, we better start making them spit out faster... or make them less likely to have bad traits in the mix.

[AceRifle 1,223]

Make it where you get pets with all the good traits very time you breed and get rid of all bad traits crap nuff said.

[TheLastOne 2]

Kill every creature on both servers on next reset and let them all respawn naturaly will put every person at even footing. I will go out and get a couple of draft horses to pull my carts and all the breeders can start all over evenly so no one can say anything about it being unfair it will be even for everybody.

Well with that argument we might as well have a full map & skill reset, raze everyone's houses and tokens and have everyone start over. For some this would be fun and not so fun for others.

Veteran breeders put in some cases years of work into their bloodlines and it's no more "fair" to simply erase that work, then to raze everyone's deeds and start the game over for everyone else too.

That being said, I am still against any creatures being immortal. Old horses die and new ones are born, its a natural cycle.

Hey bud i have had the server go by-by on me a couple of times so get over it there skills wont be going anywhere it would take no time for them to hit the cap again and we can start this all over again my idea would have just given us a couple of months without listening to these posts

[Madt 1,178]

Mrbloodworth, I hate to be rude but once again you are getting involved in things you have no idea about. You do not actively play on wild and you push these ideas as they are ideas that seem appealing to you and only you.

How many times must wild players post that this change is not needed on wild? We have a very good flow of animals as people hunt regularly in order to compete in pvp and raise skills. Therefore there isn't the issue of one person having 200 venerable horses on a deed like there is on Freedom. As such these changes are not needed on Wild. Putting them in on wild will only serve as a kick in the teeth to the current players on it and even more so since the idea was pushed by a person who has no experience on wild.

You may have played other games which you quite oftenly state that have superior methods and ways to wurm however thats that game and this is this game. This game is played by the people who do so because there is something they enjoy about it. If you change it then it'll only make them see no reason to keep buying premium and stick with wurm.

To Rolf, I hope these changes will only appear on Freedom. If they are needed there then let them be put in but wild do not want nor need these changes. Adding them will only be an insult to player feedback and the very reason you made this thread.

[Mrbloodworth 41]

Mrbloodworth, I hate to be rude but once again you are getting involved in things you have no idea about.

[Madt 1,178]

The phrase 'If it ain't broke, don't fix it.' comes to mind.

Let's turn it around and you explain why it should be a universal change instead. I cannot possibly see any good reason to do so.

[Mrbloodworth 41]

I already did.

[Derp 310]

You're going about this the wrong way...you need to make people not want or need to hoard, as it's clearly not within the game's capability. It can't support unlimited animals and 50, 60, 70k it's all the same, the cap will just get reached by people hoarding animals. The amount bred will expand to fill the slots available.

Why is there such a horse turnover on freedom? You don't need that many horses, I mean how many die? They can't even get stolen (ideally), so you really should be keeping a very small number of horses for a very long time until they die of starvation.

Why can't branded animals survive on deed only, and deeds have a limit of the number that can be branded at a time? Or is there already something like that?

[As_I_Decay 1,592]

I'll explain, MadT:

Those armies of greenish/champ crocs-trolls-etc. that you guys always seem to have in pvp skirmishes shouldn't be living for ions.

And, from photos i've seen, wilds breeding pens look exactly like freedoms, except for the fact that all of your penned stuff is greenish/champ (FS raising kind of stuff).

Why is there such a horse turnover on freedom?

[Madt 1,178]

I'll answer your reasons in your previous post then Mrb although there aren't many good points you make.

Answers in orange.

I fail to see why wild should be allowed to keep creatures forever, when the system itself needs to be cyclic in nature across all servers. Cap reached or not is irrelevant.

This is a simple opinion you've stated. Animals don't actually need to die off unless there is an overpopulation. Just because it'd be more like nature is neither here nor there.

Seems to be a case where there is a clear improvement to a system needed, but some have grown accustomed to the oversight or shortcomings of the old system. I see no harm in keeping the change consistent, when the benefits would outweigh the downsides. I understand it is awesome to keep  something forever, but not at the impact of removing something that should be dynamically changing all the time ( Life and death cycles ).

What are these benefits? You might say breeding would be required more but actually this is already in place on wild. Horses and animals are killed very often in fights and hunting and breeders breed to replace the animals lost. Just like on Freedom they'd do it to replace an animal that died of age.

Animals should die of old age. Period. So the cycle can renew itself. It will also make breeding more necessary, instead of a one time path.

See my previous point, breeding is very necessary on wild as animals die all the time. Dying of age isn't needed to cull animals.

Health of the game > A few players personal wishes.

Is being required to breed, and replace your best steed really such a hassle? Should it not have been this way from day one. In the future, wild may become more popular. Stagnating the divide between haves and have nots does not make for a healthy PvP.

[Mrbloodworth 41]

This is a simple opinion you've stated. Animals don't actually need to die off unless there is an overpopulation.

[Madt 1,178]

They don't need to die at old age because they die in pvp mostly before they get to that age.

And another thing, why are you all so bothered about the animals on wild? You don't live here so I fail to see why its any concern of yours. I haven't seen a single wild player post that they want this change on wild yet you enforce something the whole or most of server doesnt want. What exactly is your agenda here?

You may say for the good of the game but how on earth is this game breaking? It's been this way for years. We're happy with it, everyone else who comes to wild is happy with it. Whats the problem? The day I see a player come to the game then leave again because animals aren't dying of old age is the day I'll die of laughter.

I've explained already why this change isn't needed on wild. It seems Mrbloodworth just has another agenda at wanting something that pretty much nobody else does. Business as usual.

[MasterGeldrin 0]

Madt:

See my previous post which is what Mr B is getting at:

Breeding and in turn population control is on a slippery slope because it is not self balancing. Just because a problem can be delayed or masked does not mean the problem no longer exists. It just means the inevitable is being delayed.

Just because its not an issue for you on wild -right this second- doesn't mean it will never be an issue, so I'm with MrB on this one. Fixing breeding/pop cap issues should be a basecode thing not a serverbased thing.

[Mrbloodworth 41]

They don't need to die at old age because they die in pvp mostly before they get to that age.

[Touche 0]

Hello,

    I understand the need for this to be properly balanced. I would also suggest possibly lowering gestation times.

-Touche

[Madt 1,178]

Because it may be an issue in the future? Seriously? If you're going to push that reason then hell lets change EVERYTHING because for all we know it might be a problem in the future.

As the saying goes, cross that bridge when we come to it, if it comes even. It hasn't yet so why should it. Wild has never had a problem with animal over population in all the time I've played. If more players come to the game I'm sure by then Rolf would have upped to better hardware to handle the stress. But then again this is wurm, the day it gets more than 2000 players is the day I eat my hat.

The aversion is towards this idea because it's being forced upon those who don't want it. This happens a lot in Wurm and unless you stamp your feet hard enough you'll simply be ignored since its what the devs wanted so it goes in, live with it.

[As_I_Decay 1,592]

As you've stated, MadT:

They don't need to die at old age because they die in pvp mostly before they get to that age.

So, don't worry about it. All of your animals will die from battle before old age...

[Madt 1,178]

Most of them do yes, but that's not the point. Even if our animals never ever reached old age this change still does not need to be put in since it isn't required. Freedom want it, that's all dandy let them have what they want, and let us have what we want. We don't want it, why force it onto us. I've already explained why it's not required.

This would be like a wild server player arguing that freedom should not get this update and wild should. How would you feel about that?

[Mrbloodworth 41]

I would still disagree.

[Alyeska 2,621]

I'll explain, MadT:

Those armies of greenish/champ crocs-trolls-etc. that you guys always seem to have in pvp skirmishes shouldn't be living for ions.

And, from photos i've seen, wilds breeding pens look exactly like freedoms, except for the fact that all of your penned stuff is greenish/champ (FS raising kind of stuff).

With all due respect, but keeping an animal alive for that long in and out of pvp (Ive done it) isn't exactly easy. And if you can keep an animal alive for that long you should be entitled to use it as you please.

[Mthec 150]

If this is going to happen we need at least a large window of opportunity to breed new animals *snip*

Maybe not large, but there should be a window for those of us with venerable only stocks to breed replacements.

I've been holding off breeding because, well, I haven't needed too.  All I want is a couple of horses for riding and pulling my cart.  But now all of my good horses are venerable and due to the cap I haven't been able to breed replacements.  I'd be more than happy to lower the number of animals I keep, I only ever had them in the first place for trying out breeding, but if this change goes ahead in the current situation all of the good traits I've been developing will be lost and I'll have to go out to find new horses.  Which is what a lot of other people will also be doing, limiting the chance of individuals finding any.

[Afira 5]

I personally think all animals on the game should have a predetermined life span. It could be a random withing a given range for the animals but they all should have a date they willl die by., be that on or off deed. If the animal is too close to its death day maybe a message could be sent 'Venerable betsy is too old to be hitched to a cart' or something similar. Heck you could add some traits 'long lived' for extra life and 'sickly' for a lightly shorter life. However I also think we need to see changes that take into account the animals that stuck on the sides of mountains. I have seen more animals on cliffsides then horded by players. When I look up a cliff and see a  number of venerable starving scorpions it indicates that it is more then a small problem.