|
|
|
|---|---|
| Posted by | Give our Kings a Queen |
 Garet (#19860) King of the Jungle View Forum Posts  Posted on 2013-11-24 04:29:46 |
Since we do have one dominant male, why not have one dominant female as well? Asiatic lions have female-run prides, and within African prides, there are dominant females. It'd still be realistic, even moreso than what we have now. I've got a few ideas that might make her useful, rather than 'just a pretty lioness we can't chase'; Our Queen would be locked to our accounts and be given her own slot. The Queen wouldn't take up a territory slot, and like our Kings, we could only have one Queen per pride. It should cost the same to retire her as it would a King, and she would not run off if too hungry or bored. Yes, you will have to play with and feed your Queen. Like Kings, we would be able to chose an heir for her when retiring or when she comes of age. We would be able to chose to keep her looks or use those of the new Queen. Thus, we could customize her or her heir and keep that look for as long as we want to. Unlike other females, the Queen wouldn't go hunting. She would have a different way of gaining stats. The Queen would be in charge of domestic-related issues. Teaching cubs /adolescents to hunt, fending off males/females at our borders, the likes. Each hour, we could chose to have her perform one of these duties and gain stats/exp. The former would also have a small chance of giving cubs stats, along with a slightly higher chance of giving the Queen stats. The Queen would only be able to take up to five cubs/adolescents under her wing at a time. She would be able to breed as well, but I think a cub with a Queen should get slightly higher stats. Nothing insane like +50 in all stats, but something small, like +1-5 across the boards. Edit: Like people have mentioned, this should be optional, like with submales. That way people wouldn't have to necessarily get one if they don't want one. |
Report
|
Snark (#10774)
Deathlord of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-03-04 10:12:36 |
Wow, this is a great idea. And to those saying it's not realistic, just shut up XD Lioden is in no way, shape, or form a realistic example of how lions live in the wild. (No lion pride is 20+ members, Lions can't look 'celestial', Lions can't buy/trade things, lions can't choose heirs, lions usually don't have 1-3 cubs, and lions don't freaking decorate themselves with flowers and feathers.) -x- It's not very nice to tell people to shut up just because they have a different opinion than you.  0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Ally (#61939)
Dreamboat of Ladies View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-03-04 10:26:49 |
@snark Lol, I hope you know I was using a sarcastic-joking style when I wrote that due to the usage of the 'XD' face. I would never laugh at someone for a valid opinion, however, what i say is fact; not opinion. If you were to simply watch a documentary about lions or read a book about them you would see that Lioden is indeed very unrealistic. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Snark (#10774)
Deathlord of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-03-05 01:43:24 |
Lol, I hope you know I was using a sarcastic-joking style when I wrote that due to the usage of the 'XD' face. I would never laugh at someone for a valid opinion, however, what i say is fact; not opinion. If you were to simply watch a documentary about lions or read a book about them you would see that Lioden is indeed very unrealistic. -x- I assure you that I am able to tell lioden is unrealistic without watching a documentary 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Skyfox [side] ❄️ (#67606)
Savage View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-03-05 05:11:08 |
No support for reasons already stated... I like what snark said: "No support. Lioden has given us those little "buttons" for lack of a better word, we can put under our lions name, so you can easily establish your own queen but typing a few letters. The advantages the queen would have in your idea seem overpowered to me, as it wouldn't function like a submale. You can have a functioning pride without a submale, but if you didn't want a queen you'd have a pretty big disadvantage against other players with queens. If the function of the queen was altered to be less powerful/not necessary to gameplay I'll be happy to support. Also lionesses don't really have hierarchy, they're all pretty even. There isn't one that is favored by the male or has dominance over the other lionesses. And yes, wolves DO have alpha pairs c: " 0 players like this post! Like?Edited on 05/03/16 @ 12:13:32 by Skyfox [The Dark Pride] (#67606) |
|
HowboutdatMCR5 (#56469)
Deathlord of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-03-06 07:02:33 |
|
Necolasa (#79257)
Sweetheart View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-03-06 07:05:47 |
Full Support on my end....I'm not fan of footnotes it makes den's looked cluttered. This could be a GB feature and optional. It'd be a great way to keep the looks of your favorite lioness as well as raise her stats by stat replacing. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Helvete (#66228)
Deathlord of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-06-26 00:41:47 |
I support. I like the idea of making one lioness in pride more important for giving her queen status while not making some overpowered features for her, like crazy stats gain or shorter time between breedings. I think it's not that hard to create some interesting role for queen that won't affect the game that much. She could be set once per lifetime with a retirement option just as kings have. I'm only not sure about an option to stat-replace her, but idk. 0 players like this post! Like?Edited on 26/06/16 @ 07:45:41 by Helvetti (#66228) |
|
HyenaTea (Main) (#93519)
Devastator View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-07-05 05:48:57 |
So in this game you HAVE to play as the King, so I was thinking that since you can explore as your king, why not explore as your Queen too? It takes too long for your king to regain energy, and perhaps while he is regaining energy you could play as your Queen and have her explore? And perhaps your Queen can have a stud request too? A King from another pride would send her a request, she would get "knocked up" by him and when your queen gives birth, as soon as the cubs turn 5 months old they're transferred to the person who sent the Queen request. I dun't know though. I fully support this though! 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Wynter [G4 NRLC) (#49900)
Heavenly View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-07-07 11:30:20 |
|
B L Y (#95651)
Deathlord of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-08-09 10:49:23 |
Okay, so yes I am new - and don't rip me apart for that, but I feel this needs some clarification for starters on a few things, and I would like to put my opinion out there. 1. Males and females equally defend the pride from intruders - be that other males, or other predators. Yes of course males are by far better suited to this task, they are physically stronger and offer that whole grandstanding effect with their manes. BUT that does not mean that the females do not do it as well. Yes, they group together to do this, but considering this site is already extremely unrealistic to the way lions actually live their lives (let me point out their coloration, the mutations being something people actually breed for, adolescent males leaving as soon as they become adults unless you make them your submale, beetles, and really I could go on) who is to say that you can't have one female that can do this? 2. Lions often assume specific roles in the pride. This is completely true. An older lioness is not going to go out hunting as often as the younger, more fit, agile and stronger females. She is going to stay behind and look after the cubs. Now going back to the unrealistic portion of Lioden, why shouldn't someone be able to choose which lioness it is that doesn't go hunting and stays home with the kids to keep an eye on what matter of muck and mayhem they are getting into? 3. Prides only have one dominant male, i.e. the "King". This is completely false, and aside from the Tsavo pride - this is almost never true. Males are not completely stupid and they know that sharing with someone you can tolerate is better then getting your butt kicked by someone you can't stand. Yes, that is a very colloquial way of putting it, but the point stands. So if you want to argue that - what you should be arguing for is that why can't we have two males that are equal on one account. Not a sub that does jack except occasionally bring back food and toys and improve himself. Yes, I understand the point of having a sub - but that isn't under question here. What is under question, is why can't we have two equal Kings ruling when that is actually more more typical in a lion pride then a single male ruling alone. A coalition can range from 2 - 4 males with 2 being the norm. A single male is very atypical and doesn't tend to hold his throne that long. 4. Females are just babymakers/bacon-bringers. Again, wrong. There have been many instances in the wild where females have actually rebelled against the new male that has either killed or chased off their previous leader and either killed him, or chased him off themselves to protect their young. Lionesses when grouped together are actually stronger, then a male. Do these female-led groups tend to survive long without a male taking over? No, they do not. But it happens. So, again, we are putting all leadership roles on one male, why can't we put them on one female as well? 5. Stats. Okay - this is where I disagree with the original post. Now I will admit, I did not read every single reply to this as for a bit there it was getting just a tad rude/redundant with people arguing things again and again. So how about, instead of stats - cubs/adols gain training stats? It would just be an extra chance to gain something over the cub training that is already in place. This would include the hunting for the adol females and the patrolling for the adol males. I'm not suggesting we put the chances of them gaining something super high - but hey why not have it as something extra? 6. Forcing players to play how the original poster wants. I think it has already been pretty clearly established that this would be an optional thing. So why still argue about it? How about you can change your queen once a week for those that are fickle? And if you want to change them more then once a week, then you have to dole out some SB. That seems a bit more fair to me. I've been on here two days and have already amassed a pretty good little horde of SB at my disposal. It's not that hard to come by, so paying 150 SB to change your queen after you've already used your freebie, shouldn't be such an issue. 7. "Well this gives an unfair advantage to those that use the Queens over people who don't!" May I point out the sub males? I personally have zero interest in a sub male. Well lookie there, I am at a disadvantage for my next king because I'm not training a new one. But I would gladly use a Queen to maybe up a cub I want to take over when my king retires because that actually appeals to me. To the people that use both, well hell we should all just be afraid of them if you go by that thinking. And this allows the players, like myself, who cannot be on as often as other people to still have a chance to get my cub training to 100% and get that bonus at the end. Now, I'm not going to comment to much on the stat-replacement or the looks because I think that could all sort itself out by being one or the other. You can keep her looks if you want, but she takes on the stats of the new Queen. Or you can keep the stats of the new Queen, but are forced to take the look of the old Queen. There ya go - let the people that are in it just for stats or just for looks set their own priorities. Ultimately I support this. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Black Rhinoceros (#68593)
Divine View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-08-09 22:39:20 |
|
Kass 🌻 (#91950)
King of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-08-10 00:51:16 |
I support. I like the idea of having a Queen to go along with the King. I'm doing that now, though, to others, she just looks like an ordinary lioness. It would be nice if she had a different display than the other lionesses because she's "royalty". I think it would be a wonderful idea if this is optional, since, people are complaining it isn't realistic. Those who are saying it's not realistic are forgetting that lions are also not colored the way they are in the game, they forget that the July event has Lion Gods and Apollyon walks around with fire paws, they forget that you can put zombie décor on your lions, as well as a bunch of other stuff. This game isn't as realistic as people are making it sound like, and I don't think adding a Queen would hurt at all. I support this idea 100%. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Oshin[Clean Stellar Smilus] (#78066) Heavenly View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-08-11 03:43:50 |
I support, its a good idea but I think that when you retire your King you should also have the option to retire the Queen as well. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Ateia (#59721)
Sweetheart View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-09-15 10:49:12 |
|
Fella (#76715)
Sinister View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-12-09 07:02:07 |
I think this is a great idea! nothing too game-changing (so the entire site will rule around having to use both male and female when doing stuff) and just a small little extra thing for those who want to have it! it all sounds so super I'm surprised it wasn't a thing already when I join here, haha. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Memory Used: 656.79 KB - Queries: 0 - Query Time: 0.00000 - Total Time: 0.00450s