|
1 2 |
|
|---|---|
| Posted by | Male Fertility |
 jaybear (#15564) Good Natured View Forum Posts  Posted on 2014-12-24 05:45:43 |
Okay if there happens to be a topic about this I am sorry, I looked through and didn't see one myself. So females have fertility which determines a whole lot of things and can give you mutations, but what about males? It would work just about the same way the female would and when you bred it would have the same sort of "effects". So if you have a goddess of a lioness, and a very low male, the female might not get pregnant. If they are both very low (say under 30%) they would have a really low chance of having cubs, but if they did have a cub or two it would have higher chances of carrying a mutation. Now some will being up "but there will be too many mutants jaybear, that wouldn't be good." Yes and no, there would be slightly higher chance to get those adorable muties we love, but at the same time is increasing the chance the mating will fail. But how is this a good thing? It's a bit more realistic, since males also carry fertility issues. It will raise player's chances of a mutie (only by some), and decrease the cub craze which fills and fills the lion population. Cubs are born everyday and players don't want to chase since they have to wait a whole 20 days for their lioness to go back into heat. Lioden gets stuck with endless cubs. Some might not like this, I know, but I feel like it would put more pressure on having fertility. I have not yet had a lioness with very low fertility fail a breeding; it would make studs better as well. People who breed for muties might want a very low stud, or if you just want some cubs a "God" fertility might be worth more. And there will always be the same craze over looks and stats, that doesn't change much. Add on edit- possibly their fertility determines how much energy is consumed for a breeding? 90-100%fertility- normal energy consumption 70-89- subtract 5 energy 40-69- subtract 10 energy Below 40- subtract 15 (Only suggestions, official numbers would be left to the staff) Please if you have any other suggestions to add onto this let me know below! I want to hear what you think!! |
Report
|
Axel (#6627)
Pervert View Forum Posts Posted on 2015-01-09 20:55:58 |
That is because low ferts actually are supposed to be bad quality. If you dont want to spend a lot of energy breeding, then just accept higher ferts. Low ferts are low ferts for a reason. Mutations or not.  0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Whispermouse (#42554)
Terrifying View Forum Posts Posted on 2015-01-09 21:04:17 |
I'd like this if the chance of lethal mutations went up. I know they're supposed to be ultra rare and whatnot, but I think its a good trade off. Lethal mutations don't have any value really, they die before they can even be traded in most cases, so it doesn't affect the market on mutation selling at all, and so it evens it out a bit if we're increasing the chances of getting a mutation over all. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Elipses... (#47303)
Evil View Forum Posts Posted on 2015-01-14 02:02:40 |
It should be called Virility! It would be awesome if very virile males had an easy time breeding with VLF girls :3 that would make people happy. But if their lion isn't virile, it's hard. 0 players like this post! Like? |
Ignight (#34198)
Monster View Forum Posts Posted on 2015-01-14 16:15:20 |
Totally support BUT I do see where Cookiemonster was concerned; if our stud is VL and our female is VL we're wasting energy studding. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
AcornSkull (#58544)
Scourge of Lions View Forum Posts Posted on 2015-04-08 13:43:10 |
I actually like this idea quite a lot! *Tosses money at screen* It could take care of the oh-so irritating cub problem people apparently adore and add more realism that games need to give it that sense of mortality people need to be reminded of 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Fizzlepop (#49710)
Majestic View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-05-10 13:35:22 |
I really like this idea, maybe instead of mutation chances, there could be a higher chance of having a large litter depending on how virile the male is? 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Shozurei (#49512)
Deathlord of the Jungle View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-05-10 13:41:07 |
I'm not sure I like this idea. I have a lot of VLF females and I once had to try over 200 times to get a 1% girl pregnant. If I had to worry about my male's fertility too, I might never get a chance to explore or the girls won't get pregnant. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Kaskii {Sunset Pie} (#67407)
Ill-Natured View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-05-13 13:54:55 |
I want to like this idea, but I don't think I can support it. Would there be a permanent fertility altering item for males? So you could have the looks/stats you desire but not be stuck with a VLF if you didn't want one? That said, I can't see this drastically altering the cub population because the people that tend to breed incessantly and toss them all into the TC will just... change their lion's fertility (if that's an option) or pick one with high fertility and keep on doing what they're doing. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
cillian murphy girlfriend (#65134) Heavenly View Forum Posts Posted on 2016-05-28 05:05:12 |
No support. I am sorry, but I am avid explorer who loves to breed. I am not about to waste my energy on a 1% if my king is a 1% themself. I believe that this is pretty worthless, actually. The mutie chance? NO. Just no. Only female fertility is what is keeping the mutation population in check since breeding items are at a low. MALES DO NOT PASS MUTATIONS. I find this idea flawed simply because you are suggesting we take more energy out of our explore time. Even with a vuka-vuka counterpart for males, this would be entirely too much to mess with. "But there are more females than queens!" Could YOU code this update into nearly ONE HUNDRED THOUSAND kings? This is just too much and I don't think this should be implemented. I am sorry, it is nothing against you of course, but I just can't support something this big. 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Mokono (#169434)
Remarkable View Forum Posts Posted on 2019-04-09 21:44:21 |
I’d support it but there’s flaws about it, the main issue is the energy. I feel like the more energy consumption for the lower male fertility is kinda ridiculous because many people already use enough energy breeding on their low fert girls 0 players like this post! Like? |
|
Agryo [Quitting] (#70050)
View Forum Posts Posted on 2019-04-10 08:34:09 |
EDIT: just noticed this was a necro'd post, my bad! Admins can we pls implement a 'hey this thread is super old don't bump it' thing??? Oof As much as the realism is appealing, I can't support. This won't do much to curve cub populations- well-off users will just use a fertility changer on each new king (like how bumping up opacities to 100% is practically a default), or they'll exclusively buy higher fert lionesses. The users you would want to limit, the ones that always sell out stud slots or mass breeders or statters, wouldn't be effected. Because the users who can afford those kings can afford to spend a little extra to avoid wasting more energy. Not many of these studs accept 1% lionesses, either, so those users will need to either buy Chasteberries or use more middle-range studs, studs who may not be able to afford those fertility items. I can see users implementing more 'I'll try X times then require a fert boost or will reject' rules, or having even higher minimum fert requirements. No problem to well-off users, but again a hurdle towards newer ones or users just doing their own thing. If anything, make fertility may reduce cub population in casual players - users who likely don't breed as many lions as the above hardcore players do as it stands. The only possible benefit this feature would provide is a big hit to VLFs, especially if they have a higher chance of producing VLF males. And benefit us a pretty loose term here; I'd be glad to weed out VLFs, but mutie breeders would be far less thrilled. 0 players like this post! Like?Edited on 10/04/19 @ 08:35:59 by Agryo [Main] (#70050) |
1 2 |
|---|
Memory Used: 627.40 KB - Queries: 0 - Query Time: 0.00000 - Total Time: 0.00422s