The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
9/18/2011
Posts:
59
Member Details
yeah by the way notch was talking about animal breeding on twitter, while he was coding it I knew it was going to be a fail, and not thought out correctly.
he still didnt promise it to be in right away. he said he would add them eventually, Mojang time calculations of eventually to real world calculations=probobly 6 months.(JK)
but seriously people act like he promised it would be in there, when he promised he would add it but he never said right away. or maby they found a bug in codeing or decided to stop the development to work on other stuff like potions and enchantments. or it could be canceled alltogether like the "crying obsidian" obelisk Jeb was going to make but got canceled. stuff changes is all im saying. and he didnt promise it to come right away.
personally i dont see baby animals adding anything at all but hey thats just my view.
I guess that Notch needs a break or something, I mean we are rushing like COME ON MO'****ER KEEP YO' **** TOGETHER
And Notch is like...
you know what lets revive ''11'' and add A stupid animal breeding system which is not really good, because this is a PRE RELEASE and I'll make it like every pre-release which is based on... like 10 things and everything is like 3% done and the other 70% Notch did this...
While Jeb was adding WAY too realistic stuff to minecraft...
Notch... react and tell jeb how to do stuff because real stuff isn't real stuff if it doesn't look or/and feel real!
... fo' real... (sorry couldn't resist there)
I'm confused by this post. My grammer are teh not no good this for thing kind. Now, I'm no grammar Nazi. Sure, typos happen. Some words can be difficult to spell or comprehend. But there's a limit. If you don't know how to spell or use a word, pull out a dictionary, or use a word you can handle.
Nice rewrite, it's a good compilation of ideas so far; especially the poll. I'm excited to see the results.
I know you already added a summation of my ideas (and I thank you for for your kind words :happy.gif:) but here's a hearty tl;dr for those who want it:
tl;dr Game balance is key, realism is just a perk
Genders would be tedious
I don't care about inbreeding
I'd like to see some way to have domesticated animals breed without player intervention
I'm equally happy with gestation or baby animals
I like the hay bale idea
I am very against limiting herd size because it defeats the purpose of adding a way for the player to control animal population.
Anyway, I think most of these ideas would be great. I especially like the hay bales, but there should be a tradeoff, like it feeding an animal "halfway" (whatever halfway is) and taking 9 wheat to produce one roll.
I'm sorry, you seem to have missed the second half of my post. The issue I was addressing was that initiating breeding requires player intervention. Baby animals wouldn't force the player to run back to the corral every few minutes because once they're fully grown, they'll wait for the player. They don't disappear upon maturation.
No, I get the second half of your post, I just don't see how the issue you present here varies between gestation periods and baby animals. In both cases you have to wait for something to happen. You don't have to run back to the corral with gestation, either. The new animal isn't going to disappear on birth.
The only difference is that babies do not have a direct effect on breeding times, just on the time it takes for the product to mature. Basically, with one method you can load the same couple up with a full stack of wheat and produce 32 babies in five minutes, but have to wait for them to mature and the other you can't spam the reproductive process without having a large flock or herd. Personally, if I had to pick one or the other and not a combination of the two, I'd go with gestation since it actually addresses the problem at hand. Babies are a nice idea, but that's animal raising, not animal breeding and in terms of gameplay, you're talking about two completely separate systems.
what a weird feeling it is to be featured in the first post, on that note i'm glad that wool regrowing and baby animals are our main priority here seeing as they're the only real problems I have with breeding right now.
Personally I think male counterparts should be added so you cannot just take any two pigs or any two cows and POP out an other animal. Also if male and female are kept in the same proximity they should breed naturally over time. One male being being able to act as sire to many females as it is more often then not in the real world. This would eliminate the tedious nature of having to put genders together, you could just put one bull in with your cows and out to pasture and let nature take it's course. Forced breeding would also be an option.
There also does need to be time between birth and ability to breed, as well as a cool down time before animals can breed a second time.
Adding counters to incest just seems pointless in such a game. Breed a bull to it's daughter and you get a mooshroom?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing Minecraft since [Friday, March 19, 2010, 9:20:21 PM] (First indev world save)
Woke up, read through a few pages, stopped there. While there were 1-2 posts that I could spend my time replying to, because they're concise and actually constructive, they've either been already replied to or are in agreement and I have nothing to add besides "Me too".
Besides that, it seems everyone wants to use "Beta" and "Pre-Release" arguments, and that's fine. Go ahead and rant on about how the game is "unfinished" and how you, knowing everything there is to know, has proof from god hisself that this aspect of the game will be changed. I'll continue to ignore it and stick by my continued claim that "I don't have proof that it is or isn't complete, I'm just making suggestions based on the current system, not any future plans."
Ohai burden of proof fallacy. What you're saying is: "There arent going to be changes to breeding because Notch hasn't said so, and YOU have to prove ME wrong". It's fine to go "I don't know and here are the suggestions", but what it seemed you said to everyone was "i dont think there's gonna be any breeding changes but i wanna whine about it anyway, and shaddup if you try and point out there may actually be some".
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
What use is an ear that does not hear, or a mouth that does not speak?
Animals breeding without the aid of the player, especially wild ones, is a recipe for disaster unless handled very, very, very careful. I spent years playing a game series called "Creatures", which was based around breeding and raising creatures called norns. Now, the norns could overpopulate the game world without a max population limit, especially in the third game, but the real problem was the ecosystem the game came with; the animals tended to die out too quickly or would breed explosively until the player was forced to use the command line to wipe them out.
The best way to handle independent breeding would be to prevent animals from going over (initial number spawned within X chunks + N, where N is a number specific to each biome), and have animals despawn from chunks that become overpopulated from migration. It may work to have a maximum population for each kind of animal, so that sheep would become the most common animal in mountain biomes, cows in grasslands, pigs in forests and swamps, etc...
++++
For wool color breeding, I think the most realistic way to do it and provide a good distribution would be to use a simple system based off of Mendelian genetics.
For white to black colors, I propose that sheep have two genes: "More" and "Less", which I will represent this way:
MW for the More white allele
Mb for the More black allele
LW for the Less white allele
Lb for the Less black allele
The white alleles are dominant over the black alleles, and the More and Less genes are incompletely dominant to each other. So:
At least one MW and at least one LW = white.
At least one MW and two Lb =light grey.
Two Mb and at least one LW = Grey
Two Mb and two Lb= Black.
The colors brown and pink should be handled by a system where white is dominant over both, and brown is dominant over pink.
So if W= white, b= brown, and p= pink
WW, Wb, and Wp= white
bb and bp= brown
and pp= pink.
... That was annoying to type up.
To keep tract of animals, you should be able to name them somehow. Maybe collars?
Edit: If anyone doesn't understand any of the above, I'll try to clarify as best as I can.
Other:
Current breeding is near perfect for the average player.
It gives us a renewable source of food, leather, wool and eggs with out making it the sole focus of the game.
Anything above that will be shifting the focus of the game from exploration and mining to farming and herding.
You didn't say anything to counter what I said, so I fail to see how I'm mistaken on that point.
If we're supposed to be talking about solutions to problems with the breeding system, it makes more sense to keep to that topic. Baby animals are the result of the breeding process, not a part of it, and don't really have any impact on problems that arise from how it is currently implemented. Whether you get a baby or an adult from breeding really doesn't change the fact that with two animals and a ton of wheat you can go from two to any number you can imagine in a single generation.
At any rate, a recent quote from Notch suggests baby animals are on the way. Maybe we can now focus on ways to actually address the problems with breeding and not whether or not we want baby animals.
Wow cool, you actually added my idea to this poll ? Sweet :smile.gif:
Addition :
If animals would eat tall grass, which itself should grow, too, we had a pretty nice precondition for herding animals, because a number of mobs would need a certain area, which is big enough to sustain them. Could prevent mass production :laugh.gif:
I'm aware this is a bit tricky to implement, but it would be a very nice addition.
P.S: How do you intend to remove incest ? You would need to make every animal unique so you can actually avoid this ^^
Ohai burden of proof fallacy. What you're saying is: "There arent going to be changes to breeding because Notch hasn't said so, and YOU have to prove ME wrong". It's fine to go "I don't know and here are the suggestions", but what it seemed you said to everyone was "i dont think there's gonna be any breeding changes but i wanna whine about it anyway, and shaddup if you try and point out there may actually be some".
No, I'm not. Read what you quoted. ""I don't have proof that it is or isn't complete, I'm just making suggestions based on the current system, not any future plans.""
You know, I love the basic breeding as it is right now. I think it could get way better i.e. baby animals and ability to carry animals when they are babies so I can colonize a new island for my King Piggy's empire.
But hey, without it added now I wouldn't have been able to finally start my animal turf war with cows pigs sheep and chickens each with they're own kingdoms populated almost exclusively by their own kind. (Wolves are mercenaries working for King Piggy to kill enemy sheep.)
he still didnt promise it to be in right away. he said he would add them eventually, Mojang time calculations of eventually to real world calculations=probobly 6 months.(JK)
but seriously people act like he promised it would be in there, when he promised he would add it but he never said right away. or maby they found a bug in codeing or decided to stop the development to work on other stuff like potions and enchantments. or it could be canceled alltogether like the "crying obsidian" obelisk Jeb was going to make but got canceled. stuff changes is all im saying. and he didnt promise it to come right away.
personally i dont see baby animals adding anything at all but hey thats just my view.
I'm confused by this post. My grammer are teh not no good this for thing kind. Now, I'm no grammar Nazi. Sure, typos happen. Some words can be difficult to spell or comprehend. But there's a limit. If you don't know how to spell or use a word, pull out a dictionary, or use a word you can handle.
I know you already added a summation of my ideas (and I thank you for for your kind words :happy.gif:) but here's a hearty tl;dr for those who want it:
tl;dr Game balance is key, realism is just a perk
Genders would be tedious
I don't care about inbreeding
I'd like to see some way to have domesticated animals breed without player intervention
I'm equally happy with gestation or baby animals
I like the hay bale idea
I am very against limiting herd size because it defeats the purpose of adding a way for the player to control animal population.
Anyway, I think most of these ideas would be great. I especially like the hay bales, but there should be a tradeoff, like it feeding an animal "halfway" (whatever halfway is) and taking 9 wheat to produce one roll.
No, I get the second half of your post, I just don't see how the issue you present here varies between gestation periods and baby animals. In both cases you have to wait for something to happen. You don't have to run back to the corral with gestation, either. The new animal isn't going to disappear on birth.
The only difference is that babies do not have a direct effect on breeding times, just on the time it takes for the product to mature. Basically, with one method you can load the same couple up with a full stack of wheat and produce 32 babies in five minutes, but have to wait for them to mature and the other you can't spam the reproductive process without having a large flock or herd. Personally, if I had to pick one or the other and not a combination of the two, I'd go with gestation since it actually addresses the problem at hand. Babies are a nice idea, but that's animal raising, not animal breeding and in terms of gameplay, you're talking about two completely separate systems.
(First that introduced breeding, not literally the first game)
There also does need to be time between birth and ability to breed, as well as a cool down time before animals can breed a second time.
Adding counters to incest just seems pointless in such a game. Breed a bull to it's daughter and you get a mooshroom?
Playing Minecraft since [Friday, March 19, 2010, 9:20:21 PM] (First indev world save)
Ohai burden of proof fallacy. What you're saying is: "There arent going to be changes to breeding because Notch hasn't said so, and YOU have to prove ME wrong". It's fine to go "I don't know and here are the suggestions", but what it seemed you said to everyone was "i dont think there's gonna be any breeding changes but i wanna whine about it anyway, and shaddup if you try and point out there may actually be some".
The best way to handle independent breeding would be to prevent animals from going over (initial number spawned within X chunks + N, where N is a number specific to each biome), and have animals despawn from chunks that become overpopulated from migration. It may work to have a maximum population for each kind of animal, so that sheep would become the most common animal in mountain biomes, cows in grasslands, pigs in forests and swamps, etc...
++++
For wool color breeding, I think the most realistic way to do it and provide a good distribution would be to use a simple system based off of Mendelian genetics.
For white to black colors, I propose that sheep have two genes: "More" and "Less", which I will represent this way:
MW for the More white allele
Mb for the More black allele
LW for the Less white allele
Lb for the Less black allele
The white alleles are dominant over the black alleles, and the More and Less genes are incompletely dominant to each other. So:
At least one MW and at least one LW = white.
At least one MW and two Lb =light grey.
Two Mb and at least one LW = Grey
Two Mb and two Lb= Black.
The colors brown and pink should be handled by a system where white is dominant over both, and brown is dominant over pink.
So if W= white, b= brown, and p= pink
WW, Wb, and Wp= white
bb and bp= brown
and pp= pink.
... That was annoying to type up.
To keep tract of animals, you should be able to name them somehow. Maybe collars?
Edit: If anyone doesn't understand any of the above, I'll try to clarify as best as I can.
Current breeding is near perfect for the average player.
It gives us a renewable source of food, leather, wool and eggs with out making it the sole focus of the game.
Anything above that will be shifting the focus of the game from exploration and mining to farming and herding.
This is MINEcraft. Not farmcraft.
You didn't say anything to counter what I said, so I fail to see how I'm mistaken on that point.
If we're supposed to be talking about solutions to problems with the breeding system, it makes more sense to keep to that topic. Baby animals are the result of the breeding process, not a part of it, and don't really have any impact on problems that arise from how it is currently implemented. Whether you get a baby or an adult from breeding really doesn't change the fact that with two animals and a ton of wheat you can go from two to any number you can imagine in a single generation.
At any rate, a recent quote from Notch suggests baby animals are on the way. Maybe we can now focus on ways to actually address the problems with breeding and not whether or not we want baby animals.
Addition :
If animals would eat tall grass, which itself should grow, too, we had a pretty nice precondition for herding animals, because a number of mobs would need a certain area, which is big enough to sustain them. Could prevent mass production :laugh.gif:
I'm aware this is a bit tricky to implement, but it would be a very nice addition.
P.S: How do you intend to remove incest ? You would need to make every animal unique so you can actually avoid this ^^
No, I'm not. Read what you quoted. ""I don't have proof that it is or isn't complete, I'm just making suggestions based on the current system, not any future plans.""
But hey, without it added now I wouldn't have been able to finally start my animal turf war with cows pigs sheep and chickens each with they're own kingdoms populated almost exclusively by their own kind. (Wolves are mercenaries working for King Piggy to kill enemy sheep.)