Should we be allowed to build on adult Reefbacks?

The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
edited August 2015 in Ideas and Suggestions
So, from what I've gathered, the current Reefbacks in-game are only juveniles. That means that the adults will be absolutely colossal. They're going to have actual full ecosystems on their backs, living up to their name. So, a friend of mine had an idea. If they're that freaking massive, what if we could build seabases on them?
«13

Comments

  • BloopBloop Germany Join Date: 2015-08-28 Member: 207553Members
    That would be really interesting! =)
  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    Bloop wrote: »
    That would be really interesting! =)

    Thanks. I thought so too.
  • sayerulzsayerulz oregon Join Date: 2015-04-15 Member: 203493Members
    I fail to see any way in which this is not a good idea.
  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    sayerulz wrote: »
    I fail to see any way in which this is not a good idea.

    Thanks. I personally think we could make it even cooler if there were more than one size of Reefback (the ones right now are babies, which you can't build on, then there's juvenile, adult, and elder, in increasing size). If you could add a way to control them, you could have a massive floating citadel flanked by a few smaller forts. That'd be cool.
  • BloopBloop Germany Join Date: 2015-08-28 Member: 207553Members
    The_Shark wrote: »
    sayerulz wrote: »
    I fail to see any way in which this is not a good idea.

    Thanks. I personally think we could make it even cooler if there were more than one size of Reefback (the ones right now are babies, which you can't build on, then there's juvenile, adult, and elder, in increasing size). If you could add a way to control them, you could have a massive floating citadel flanked by a few smaller forts. That'd be cool.

    wow! =O That is such a good idea - it should be on the to do list of the developers very soon!!! It would be a controlled mobile biological base. More ideas please @The_Shark! You are like an idea-machine! ;-)
  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    Bloop wrote: »
    It would be a controlled mobile biological base.

    That's the idea. It would be intimidating. Have it led by a couple Cyclopes...
    Bloop wrote: »
    More ideas please @The_Shark! You are like an idea-machine! ;-)

    Thanks. I try.
  • Z-comZ-com canada Join Date: 2015-08-30 Member: 207583Members
    I actually tried to build on one earlier today!
  • 04Leonhardt04Leonhardt I came here to laugh at you Join Date: 2015-08-01 Member: 206618Members
    And then the Reefback despawns along with your entire base.
  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    And then the Reefback despawns along with your entire base.

    Or they could have it so the Reefbacks with bases on them don't despawn. Problem solved.
  • DC_DarklingDC_Darkling Join Date: 2003-07-10 Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver
    Am I the only one who is not going like 'a nice living whale think, why on earth would I BUILD on the darn thing.'.
  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    Am I the only one who is not going like 'a nice living whale think, why on earth would I BUILD on the darn thing.'.

    You have a point, I'll admit, but keep in mind what Reefbacks actually are. That's like saying that whales shouldn't have any barnacles, because reasons. The Reefbacks have an entire ecosystem on them, I doubt a bit of titanium (which is half as heavy as steel) would really be noticed.
  • HeadHunterHeadHunter The Pitt Join Date: 2015-08-27 Member: 207530Members
    They are majestic creatures that we should not be treating as a mobile building platform. I think in a game where the developers have gone out of their way to make it non-violent, this would be crossing a line. It seems pretty disrespectful.

  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    HeadHunter wrote: »
    I think in a game where the developers have gone out of their way to make it non-violent

    ...violent?

    So now giving someone a suit of armor is violent?

    From the "humane" point of view, the presence of a fortress on the Reefbacks would do nothing but protect them. There are creatures willing to mess with a normal Reefback, but if they try with these ones, they get launched halfway across the ocean by a propulsion cannon. This, combined with the fact the Reefback itself wouldn't even notice any fortress except for ridiculously large ones due to its inherent strength...
  • CrazyAcekingCrazyAceking New York, NY, 10003 Join Date: 2015-05-09 Member: 204307Members
    how would you like it if some jerk decided to screw some platforms to your back? besides the thing would move around by itself and your base would be lost.
  • MyrmMyrm Sweden Join Date: 2015-08-16 Member: 207210Members
    I think building on these creatures is a stupid idea. Sorry.
  • HeadHunterHeadHunter The Pitt Join Date: 2015-08-27 Member: 207530Members
    The_Shark wrote: »
    So now giving someone a suit of armor is violent?

    From the "humane" point of view, the presence of a fortress on the Reefbacks would do nothing but protect them.
    Let's be honest, you're not doing it with the intent of "protecting" these creatures. They don't need[/i] your "protection"[/i].
    You're doing it because it would be cool to have a floating base on top of an animal. You're treating a living thing like an object for your amusement. Your base won't do anything to make them safer and let's be honest - that's only a weak justification imagined after the fact.

    Do you ride around on your dog for its "protection" too? I'm not seeing how this would be humane in the slightest way. If you truly respect them, leave them the hell alone.
  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    HeadHunter wrote: »
    The_Shark wrote: »
    So now giving someone a suit of armor is violent?

    From the "humane" point of view, the presence of a fortress on the Reefbacks would do nothing but protect them.
    Let's be honest, you're not doing it with the intent of "protecting" these creatures. They don't need[/i] your "protection"[/i].
    You're doing it because it would be cool to have a floating base on top of an animal. You're treating a living thing like an object for your amusement. Your base won't do anything to make them safer and let's be honest - that's only a weak justification imagined after the fact.

    Do you ride around on your dog for its "protection" too? I'm not seeing how this would be humane in the slightest way. If you truly respect them, leave them the hell alone.

    A living being...

    You realize this is a game, right?
  • HeadHunterHeadHunter The Pitt Join Date: 2015-08-27 Member: 207530Members
    Yes, and in the game, a reefback is a living thing.
    You shouldn't be able to build on it for the same reason developers don't want you to fire a torpedo at it.

    If your real concern is "protecting them", from whatever could possibly threaten an elder reefback, feel free to swim around with that propulsion rifle and be the Subnautica Humane Society - instead of driving pylons into its hide to support your seabase. But if what you really want is to make a cool floating base on the back of an animal, understand that this probably doesn't jive with the developers' intent to keep the setting one where the player does not subjugate the sea life of this new world.
  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    HeadHunter wrote: »
    the developers' intent to keep the setting one where the player does not subjugate the sea life of this new world.

    And, which one is that, exactly?

    Keep in mind, your character was on a ship with the mission to do exactly that. Your entire job was to make the planet not only suitable to sustain human life, but so that humanity could control it. So you're saying the purpose of the game is to go out of your way to NOT fulfill your original mission?
  • HeadHunterHeadHunter The Pitt Join Date: 2015-08-27 Member: 207530Members
    Colonizing the planet is one thing. You're allowed to do so already. I'm pretty sure they weren't planning on colonizing the backs of living organisms when they didn't bring any offensive weaponry at all.

    How are you planning on anchoring that base to its back? Securing it to the stationary sea floor involves metal rods at least as thick as your wrist. I'm pretty sure impaling the sea life wasn't part of the scientific agenda.

    If the mission was to subjugate all life on the planet, then they really needed to bring some heavier firepower than a knife. I just find it humorous that you're talking about "protecting" the sea life while advocating driving bolts into its hide your your base can float around on its back.
  • sayerulzsayerulz oregon Join Date: 2015-04-15 Member: 203493Members
    Has anyone considered that the reefbacks are pretty clearly not actually single creatures, but rather colony organisms? Meaning that the don't feel pain, and really don't care what you do, because they are really just a large mass of bacteria. Besides, if they have a reef on their backs, would we not just be anchoring our bases to the coral on it? And finally, if you want to treat the virtual mega jellyfish with respect, then just don't build on them!
  • HeadHunterHeadHunter The Pitt Join Date: 2015-08-27 Member: 207530Members
    That's one possible interpretation - though the fact that they vocalize would seem to suggest it's not an accurate classification.
    It reminds me more of an alien whale than anything else (admittedly, a whale that mated with a jellyfish and/or a shiitake mushroom).

    I guess it doesn't really matter what any of us think. If the developers permit it, then their intent will be quite clear. As it will if they don't, incidentally.
  • BloopBloop Germany Join Date: 2015-08-28 Member: 207553Members
    edited August 2015
    @HeadHunter

    1.: It is just a game and nobody/nothing could feel any pain!

    2.:Even if you think on the intended ingame way - you dont need to hack bolts or pylons into their hide for a base. You could use super-glue or vacuum cups etc.
    and if you control its "mind" - there is not such a thing like "acting against its will" anymore. They also control the animals in the Movie Avatar (on a strange way^^) and Avatar is absolutely PRO nature/animals!
  • HeadHunterHeadHunter The Pitt Join Date: 2015-08-27 Member: 207530Members
    If your first point matters, then there's no basis for keeping weapons out of the game.

    Your second point is irrelevant because it lacks internal logical consistency.

    Again, it doesn't matter what any of us think. UWE will decide based on their own preferences and then their view on the matter will be known.
  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    HeadHunter wrote: »
    Again, it doesn't matter what any of us think. UWE will decide based on their own preferences and then their view on the matter will be known.

    This. I think we should just agree to disagree.
  • BloopBloop Germany Join Date: 2015-08-28 Member: 207553Members
    HeadHunter wrote: »
    Your second point is irrelevant because it lacks internal logical consistency.

    Why?

  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    Bloop wrote: »
    HeadHunter wrote: »
    Your second point is irrelevant because it lacks internal logical consistency.

    Why?

    Probably something about superglue not working underwater. He just said that to argue when he didn't have an argument. It's the future, sounds fine to me.
  • BloopBloop Germany Join Date: 2015-08-28 Member: 207553Members
  • The_SharkThe_Shark USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
    Bloop wrote: »
    ncl.ac.uk/press.office/press.release/item/nature-s-strongest-glue-comes-unstuck

    asknature.org/strategy/84b907f8fbb7159188fc9fee2349225e

    And now imagine such a glue could be produced in great masses synthetically in the future!

    Freaking barnacles. Genius.
  • reaperLeviathenfoodreaperLeviathenfood florida Join Date: 2015-05-19 Member: 204681Members
    Yeah I think we should be able to, why not? It would be a LOT less uncomfortable and heavy than a harness on a dog (in comparison to size). Now im not suggesting we manipulate all the native life into pets cause eventually it would get lame...but we ARE here to make this place habitable by humans, we are not simply 'observing'. If you want to make a base on a moving creature sure why not, if you cant get to it before a reaper eats you, your own fault. Sure u could argue 'it doesn't want it on', but then what about the coral growing on it? the barnacles? calcium deposits? yeaaaah I don't see it ramming itself onto mountains to get it off. Make it suction cups so its life freindly and bam your golden.
Sign In or Register to comment.