Posted by Inbreeding mechanics

Berenos|On hiatus (#84593)

Resurgent
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 04:03:52
Yes. Inbreeding. That thing that many players go "Why do you avoid it it does nothing anyways" about. But please read it all before hitting the "NO support" button; I'd love to hear your thoughts, but please hear me out first.

Inbreeding Mechanics



In real life, inbreeding will often cause malformations, mutations and a general detriment of the offspring's health if done to the extreme, and is used to conserve certain desirable traits in animals. We already have the second part easy enough - many breeding projects use the tactic of breeding the son that has the desired trait/s to his mother, or the contrary with a father and his daughters, to produce more lions with those same traits -, but I think it would be interesting to add a bit more complexity to Lioden. What if there was a set system that added a higher chance of miscarriage for each shared relative, with an added, smaller chance of producing a lethal cub, and generally producing offspring with lower stats than they would have normally, or even the possibility of spontaneous infertile cubs? It would certainly add another limit to the breeding system.

Why would that be useful?



The breeding system has currently a global limit, the fertile lifespan of a lion - from 2 years old to 16 years old for males, females from 2 years to 14, varying due to their own heat cycles and the use of Instant Cub Delivery, two limits to male breedings, and one for females: the males are limited by their own energy when mating with their own females, and the double of the usual energy and studding slots when mating with the lionesses of another player, while the females are limited by a cooldown after giving birth to a litter.

And yet, there are easy ways to bypass these limits: the use of Energy Roots to breed within our own lionesses, that and Cape Bulrush for the stud requests, the Black Stallion that ensures the female it's used on will get pregnant the next try, and for females there is the use of Yohimbe Bark to shorten their cooldown - granted, this last item is only available during one Event and it requires a lot of them to make a big difference.

Now, Energy Roots and Cape Bulrush are available all year around in the Oasis, and while the Cape Bulrush replenishes 3 stud slots per and costs 3GB - making those 3 additional studdings cost 1GB each at least -, it's rather easy to just buy Energy Roots and offer for people to send their females in heat to your account, along with the payment and other items that they wish for your male to use - at their own risk, that is. This means that the original 15 studdings limit - which would add a max of 60 new cubs to the game each week - is bypassed completely, and the amount of lionesses for them to breed now depends on the level of trust this player is given balanced with how much people want to stud to their male. A player could breed thousands of cubs, instead of the potential max of 24 cubs per lioness - the biggest litter is 4 and a lioness has a heat every 2 years until she's 14 years old, which means she can have around 6 natural heats - he could have in his own pride, plus the max amount of 2520 cubs if this male spent all of his weekly stud slots every week starting from 2 years old until he was forced to retire at 16, without using any of the items listed above. Even if we cut those numbers by half - because 1 and 2 cub litters are the most common - that amount of cubs produced by a single male is insane.

How many of those cubs end up clogging the Trade Center, not quite meeting the requirements of their breeders, and yet having cost too much to be used as fodder and disappear from the database? How many of those cubs in the Tree, where they get their stats lowered to NCL amounts from before the overhaul of the system, and thus losing potential owners? With the implementation of an inbreeding system the mass breeding would slow down, either because the stillbirth regulates the amount of cubs produced or more players take their time to plan for a breeding searching for a partner with whom they share goals, if they don't want to risk it with the inbreeding penalty, letting the market breath and rejuvenate itself - and before you protest, yes, I know studdings to highly sought out lions take weeks and even months, and a lot of resources. This is meant for more studs to be sought for the players, instead of the same group all the time, which would even the market by adding more competitors, and thus lowering the prices, even.

What would it consist of?



To keep it well balanced, the lethal mutations would have to be a lower chance than using a CRB - whatever that chance is - but it'd be an added thing to roll when the cubs are conceived. And we already have miscarriages when a lioness isn't nested or isn't well fed, only that this would be a cumulative chance of a set percentage per shared relative, around 1%, even when that lioness is sated and nested. To avoid having everyone suffering from the penalties suddenly, this could be introduced gradually over a couple or real time months, when players have the chance of starting to reach out for lions unrelated to their own and the coders can go over everything a bit more calmly.

The penalties could work in two diferent ways, but it's always calculated with the amount of repeated ancestors a lion has in his/her full heritage: first, by substracting the corresponding percentage of the inherited stats from a parent. Both parents would suffer this independently, before the resulting stats combined to be the ones of their offspring. If we take up to the Great-Great Grand-Parents of the parents, which would be up to a 30% of penalty per parent in the worts of cases; second, by adding a chance of the cubs of the litter being stillborn, rolling individually for each cub, and being the result of the sum of both the parents' penalties, divided by 2, which would result in a 15% of a cub being stillborn in the worst of cases.

There's a lot of controversy regarding the possibility of a slightly higher chance of lethal mutations, so there's the option of creating a unique mutation for the system - a runt lion of sorts - that would be infertile and wouldn't be able to hunt, breed, patrol or be a king, maybe have a shorter lifespan, or having no additional mutation chance at all. Along with this, there'd be a chance - the same as the penalty - to produce spontaneus infertile lions.

Summarized, inbreeding could entail:


  • Lower stats than what would be expected

  • A set percentage of an added chance of miscarriage|The chance would roll for each cub of the litter individually, not for the litter as a whole|With the lowest of chances and with a lion being and ancestor 15 times, it would mean a chance of 14 - 15% of a cub being stillborn - depending if we take it from the third time a lion is related to introduce the penalty or not

  • A whole new item to ensure that at least one cub survives

  • Spontaneous infertility

  • A higher chance of producing a lethaly mutated cub, but still lower than a CRB - it only affects the chance of having a lethally mutated cub, not the chance of having a mutated cub overall|Or|An exclusive non-lethal mutation, consisting on weak looking, infertile lions that are unable to hunt,
    patrol or be kings, an keep the other lethal mutations' odds as they are currently

  • Possible ways for the inbreeding to take place:


    • The effects above - minus the lethal mutation - would have a cumulative increased chance per shared ancestor

    • A three strike system could be added, too, and start from the 3rd ancestor shared and not the 1st for the effects to take place

    • There could be a limit to the amount of times a common ancestor can influence the cumulative system

    • The cumulative could stop working from a particular ancestor once it reaches the status of Great-Great Grand Parents or Grand Parents only

    • The inbreeding could only be considered such if the parents are directly related within five generations only




Frequent comments:




  • This would harm new players, because smaller prides means more inbreeding: A little bit of inbreeding won't be a problem, so they are safe in this regard until they get the grasp of it, like everything else in the game, and the pride size doesn't matter when it comes to inbreeding.


  • This would ruin the game for stat breeders: When this was first suggested, there was no limiting feature for stats, but the amount of time, effort and allies a player has, which means the market is controlled by a handful of people. This isn't meant to take away all their effort, but to make it so that they need to reach out for others to keep on with their breeding, and thus even the field. Now we have limited consumption of certain food items, or usage of other items that grant stats in one way or another, but this could be another way to do so.


  • This would mean I have to get rid of my offspring because I cannot safely breed them to their father: Yes and no. You could risk it and breed them anyway - a 2, 4, 6, or 10% of penalty would require you to have really bad luck to have a stillborn -, or you could seek out a stud to breed them until you reach a level of inbreeding you feel safe again or until you get another main male.


  • Lethals are supposed to be rare/This would make people stop buying CRB: For those who are worried that this would harm the mutie market making the lethal mutations more common, another possibility was added, that of an exclusive mutation that would be virtually useless. We already have the chance of claiming a CRB lioness in explore and people still buy Cotton Root Bark, so I don't see how increasing the chance of a mutant born of an inbred lioness would change it. Yet, the option of the unique mutation remains. Or not adding a mutation effect at all.


  • This would make the rare markings/bases breeders project even harder: I agree, but I don't know how this could be avoided short of increasing the drop chance of those traits to make up for the penalty that results from inbreeding the lions that got the particular trait, or the introduction of an item and ensured the base pased - but those suggestions have a controversy of their own.


  • This would be a problem for the players that have long, inbreed lineages already: Other than introducing the system slowly, with warning notices so these players could branch out their lions and avoid the worst, or plainly wiping the heritage of every lion currently on Lioden - as some of you suggested - there's no other thing I can think of currently to avoid the issue.


  • I like "insert inbreeding feature nº1 here" but not "insert inbreeding feature nº2 here", can't it be just that instead?: Now, when this idea was born - brainstorming with a group of players, with eveyrone adding their own thoughts - it was as a way to add another layer of limits to the game inspired by real life inbreeding consequences. In my opinion, there shouldn't be a feature added without the rest, because they are meant to balance each other out.


  • What if I don't want to play like this? Can't this have a toggle?: I don't think it is feasible to introduce such a change as something you can just toogle on and off, like the Events. Perhaps I'm wrong, but even if I'm not, this was thought with the intention of mending the market. If everyone could just hop off, it would be moot point.




*Note: Given the amount of feedback this has received, I will no longer reply to every single one; the OP is very clear on both the basis of the suggestion as well as the issues it was inspired of, and you are free to agree or disagree; just please don't take it on me as player. If you have doubts after reading it, feel free to PM and I'll try my best to explain myself better when I have the time. Nothing would please me more than to find a middle ground for the reasonable issues mentioned over the replies to be resolved, or even have another, better suggestion be born from this one.



This suggestion has 501 supports and 559 NO supports.



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Edited on 20/02/18 @ 07:03:58 by Berenos (#84593)

Berenos|On hiatus (#84593)

Resurgent
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 05:35:37
I'll try to adress one by one again later, but thank you guys for your feedback!



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Ky 🐓|G1 Subtle| (#2104)

Confused
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 05:35:40
Supporting this fully. Stat drops and all. Having to pick a variety of studs for a breeding project would be great instead of how it is now. (and honestly aside from bragging rights and determining who goes first in an explore battle... what's the difference between 200 stats and 8000 stats?)



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Fart (#25392)

Holy
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 05:36:49
@Berenos

That doesn't assuage my concerns.



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

IzzCake (#99827)

Confused
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 05:39:55
I am not supporting this, although I do agree that inbreeding is and can be very bad. I favor Raamiah's suggestion for only punishing father-daughter and mother-sun relations, but no deeper. As a forgetful person I would forget who the grandparents even are. I personally try to avoid inbreeding at all costs, simply because I think it's gross. The stacking feature also comes into play, I do not breed for stats but for those who do it could be very detrimental, it may not seem like a lot but when you take the grandparents and such into consideration it can add up quickly. I personally see no problem with the lethal mutation boost, if it wasn't too much only a little bit above normal.



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Raamiah [rolls on
Sundays] (#83061)

Deathlord of the Jungle
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 05:44:15
@Berenos

I didn't for a moment think it was aimed as a punishment for the stat breeders, don't worry :) I remember the furor of the genetics change, and how opposition subsided over time, too. I feel that we do have a chance at stat breeding the way the current situation is, though. I saved up 40GB and bought one high stat girl a year and a bit ago, then sold her cubs in order to buy more lions, etc... it is possible to top the queens' leaderboard spending just 40GB, and system is in no way elitist. I'm very proud of that legacy, and I don't want to abandon it :(

I would be happier with stacking only reaching back as far as the grandparents, definitely! Thank you for considering what I have said... while we clearly have very different views I am very impressed with how you argue your points, and how well you put them across :)



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Azara (#65842)

Astral
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 05:53:35
Stacking it to grandparents would give the heritage time to recover. I don't think the implementation would affect all CURRENT lions, I feel like it'd just affect future lions.



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Lucifer~ 2.8k stat
harlequin! (#86490)

Deathlord of the Jungle
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 05:58:17
I'm not happy with the chance of lower stats :/ you don't get close to the stats of the parents as right now, so inbreeding causing lower stats isn't what I want :/ I'm just starting out breeding for stats and this could make it even harder for me...



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

[HM] Vayae (#107100)

Unholy
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 06:07:00
I do support!
Also, besides any unwanted traits, maybe we could add a special base that can be randomly achieved by inbreeding, or a marking?
I also do think that adding maybe one type of personality (like, for example, unstable or just crazy) that might come as outcome of inbreeding would be nice :)



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

😸 Chonk 😸 (#54568)

Deathlord of the Jungle
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 06:08:58
I think grandparents would be a good distance back to go for negative effects to occur. Having to pay more attention to pedigrees and putting a little more time and consideration into each breed would enhance the experience overall imo. Right now I usually just breed the same lions together every mating. I am missing out, really. I am missing out on a more personal connection to my lions and litter, and who knows what I would discover if I were forced to look. People wouldn't be falling back to the same studs over and over. They would have to plan pedigrees if they wanted to maximize things like stats or looks and utilize all that is available. I think this sounds like a lot more fun. Allowing inbreeding just makes the game easier and less immersive.

Another idea might be to make it less likely that a lion will inherit markings if its inbred. So you are more likely to get a potato.



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?


Edited on 02/04/17 @ 13:37:40 by Locust {Reduced Royalty} (#54568)

😸 Chonk 😸 (#54568)

Deathlord of the Jungle
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 06:11:55
An unstable or crazy personality sounds like fun xD Males couldnt be kinged, and females might abort or kill their cubs. The personality could be unchangeable too



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

⛧August⛧ (#93898)

Vicious
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 06:12:15
You have my support, but I do have a few issues. I constantly try to stay clean lined for lore purposes. I don't want the father of a cub to also be the grandfather. That requires, of course, to keep bringing in NCL lions to insure the utmost guarantee of safety. So this doesn't hurt me too bad. I also believe that you are able to gain high stats without inbreeding and that newer players deserve a chance, so I agree with the stat reduction as it would help balance out the stat market. I'm also sick of being asked why I bother with clean lines, a reason not to inbreed would help on that front. But on to the issues:

1. Miscarriages as a punishment for inbreeding is much too brutal and cruel. If I used many expensive breeding items on a lioness only to have her lose cubs due to being inbred, I'd be absolutely enraged.

2. The lethal mutations increase is hardly a punishment anymore. Many players, including me, are now going after lethal mutations and seeing them as a reward. While the stat reduction would help the economy, the lethal increase would damage it severely as players would constantly keep breeding within their own pride and not seek out studs.

So yes, as a clean lineage breeder I agree that there should be /some/ kind of risk or punishment to inbreeding. I think that the stat reduction is more than enough to deter people, and the others are simply too cruel.



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

Lucifer~ 2.8k stat
harlequin! (#86490)

Deathlord of the Jungle
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 06:12:59
What about those who don't want these effects but can't afford to stud them to someone else :/ it would waste their heat and could keep some players broke if they have over maybe 50-100 lions?



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?

😸 Chonk 😸 (#54568)

Deathlord of the Jungle
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 06:15:35
Crow made some good points, maybe if a litter is insta birthed you would lose the chance the litter would be lost? Since it would be rolled at rollover. That way if you had an inbred expensive litter, you could protect it by ibfing.

I'm not too keen on anything that brings more mutations into the game either, and inbreeding really shouldnt be rewarded at all. But I dont really care too much either way about this.

I would consider less mass breeding to be a positive result of this being implemented. So if studs had to be paid for, not as many could be afforded and less litters would be born overall, improving individual lion value :)



Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?


Edited on 02/04/17 @ 13:21:27 by Locust {Reduced Royalty} (#54568)

Heda Vampiric (#56702)

Prophet
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 06:28:02

The more I look at it and the response the more I see this as, I apologize but to put it bluntly, "'heck' statters, I want more and easier mutations". A lot of people are looking at this and mentioning how it's gonna 'regulate' the statters and such but really it's also going to hurt us. As I said before, we have a very limited gene pool if we want to breed decent cubs worth while.

Pairo also mentioned there being no difference between 200 and 8000 stats. There is a difference. My side king is not meant for stats, and so he is low. I have to keep him in the 2nd and sometimes 1st zone just so he can win battles. My high stat king can win almost any battle in all the zones currently open to him.

I also think this suggestion is more inclined to help mutation breeders make a profit, as you can inbreed for free and eventually achieve the mutations you want.

I also do not support Locusts suggestion of potato cubs from inbreeding. It is hard enough as is sometimes to breed markings. I have a mottled rosette male, and even breeding to other mottled rosettes, I cannot seem to produce the very often.

Most of the people who support this are claiming that it will make the game harder, but this is false. I think this suggestion is intended to hurt only stat (and in locusts suggestion, marking) breeders. If anything this would help Mutation breeders (and possibly fuck the mutation market because of the influx of mutations, especially lethals.)
Another thing, is people argue that lioden is 'too easy'. I feel this is false. It's only 'easy' if you have the time to put in. There are users who cannot be on 24/7 or even 2/5.


To quote Fart;
"Not to mention that the miscarriage/stat reduction mechanics would almost certainly disproportionately punish newbies, casual players, etc, because they don't have the currency or connections to trivialize the feature. Each loss is far more significant to them. "

To quote Scout;
"The only thing I don't really like about this idea is the increased chance of lethals- there's over 10000 people on lioden, and lots of them would start a huge inbreeding project for lethals. While the chance for lethals is already pretty small and you say the inbreeding chance would be even smaller, if enough prides began breeding for it, there would be a noticeable amount of lethals being born."

To quote Izz;
"The stacking feature also comes into play, I do not breed for stats but for those who do it could be very detrimental, it may not seem like a lot but when you take the grandparents and such into consideration it can add up quickly."

A lot of people, including myself, have brought up these concerns, but I feel you're not actually giving us a response on it.


Even if this was just a miscarriage suggestion for inbreeding, I would not support, but it has double my non-support because you're hitting statters for inbreeding, but would be rewarding mutation-breeders for inbreeding.



I also looked at Locusts second thing about personalities from inbreeding not being changeable. I don't support that either. If I had a bomb ass cub but then it had a personality I couldn't change (Especially if it conflicted with my kings and caused him to lose things fast than the rest of the pride) I would be upset, This is just a minor thing that does not bother me as much. Just merely giving my opinion.



I also think it false to say impliment inbreeding punishment (Don't say it's not a punisment because it is. You inbreed your lions because you want something, and as a punishment you lose the litter, get a potato, or have decreased stats. It's only not a punishment when you get that sweet lethal for doing it. Then it's a reward.) would reduce breeding. I've already seen several users mention that they would inbreed the hell out of their lions for those possible mutations.




Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?


Edited on 02/04/17 @ 13:30:02 by Heda RedBox (#56702)

Berenos|On hiatus (#84593)

Resurgent
View Forum Posts


Posted on
2017-04-02 06:29:46
I'l try to keep this short, to adress everyone who has posted their thoughts beyond the "I support/don't support" and hasn't gotten a reply already:

@Locust:

I'll reply to your post separately:
1. Thank you! I really think this would force people to interact and trade with each other, or just visit the Trading Centre more regularly if they're casual players. It'd help balance out the trades, in the very least, and create thicker players' collaborations in the best of cases.

2. Hmm... In real life, people inbreed their animals to maintain certain traits, so the idea that inbreeding makes it harder to pass a marking is not something I'd consider. This is thought to be kind of a balancing system, where people need to weight the pros and cons carefully to achieve their goals. It'd be too much to add a marking pass rate penalty to this, I think.

3. That effect to the crazy/unstable personality would be interesting. I have another suggestion for a possible personalities overhaul, they'd compliment each other rather well.

@Divided We Fall:

There was some talk about a possible, unique mutation added for inbreeding - kind of an ugly faced, weak looking lion - but it was not very well defined, so feel free to add your input further for it if you want. And the closseness is another way of outlining the system, I'll make sure to put it in the Head Post once I'm done writing this reply. Also, this isn't meant to increase the chance of having a mutation, but to increase the chance of it being a lethal mutation if you do have a mutation. I need to post this part clearer in the Head Post.

@Scout

My intention is for it to be a higher chance of the cub being a stillborn than being a lethaly mutated cub - I cannot tell it any more clear because the particular chance of the CBR is unknown to us.

@Fart

Then I'm sorry. I hope there's no hard feelings between us, regardless of the outcome of this suggestion. I'm not doing it out of saltiness xD

@IzzCake

Thank you for your input! Raamiah's suggestion was added to the Head Post, if it helps you being a bit less concerned about it.

@Raamiah

Then I hope there's no bad blood between us, no matter the outcome of this. I certainly don't want to impose myself. I said my piece, you said yours, and we understand each other even if we don't share it. And thank you, that someone would think I can communicate clearly me really happy - English is not my fist language, so I try to be very careful when I'm writing :)

@Adara

I hadn't thought about it being... retroactive? But I have no idea how they can do to make it work starting from the point of implementation. I can only think of them maintaining two different databases for it...

@~LuciferThorne~|~MAW~

I'm sorry you feel that way, but there's many players - myself included - that think the stat thing has gotten to ridiculous proportions.

@Vayae

It's certainly a thought! The implementation of this would enable a lot of possibilities. I need to remember to add the personality thing to the Head Post, along with the unique mutation. The markings I'm feeling a bit so-so, because we are going to get Random Applicator unique markings already.

@Crow

Thank you for your support! The miscarriages are thought to be a low chance thing, per cub, not per pregnancy, like the miscarriages due to hunger work. And the lethal mutation increase doesn't affect the chances of getting a mutated cub, as I stated before.

I'm sorry if I missed something, you guys are posting feedback faster than I can think and type, it seems. xD







Hrt Icon 0 players like this post! Like?


Edited on 02/04/17 @ 13:41:08 by Berenos (#84593)







Memory Used: 674.55 KB - Queries: 0 - Query Time: 0.00000 - Total Time: 0.00426s