Should we be allowed to build on adult Reefbacks?
The_Shark
USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
USA Join Date: 2015-08-24 Member: 207433Members
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?
Comments
Thanks. I thought so too.
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! ;-)
That's the idea. It would be intimidating. Have it led by a couple Cyclopes...
Thanks. I try.
Or they could have it so the Reefbacks with bases on them don't despawn. Problem solved.
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.
...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...
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?
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.
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?
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.
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.
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!
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.
This. I think we should just agree to disagree.
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.
asknature.org/strategy/84b907f8fbb7159188fc9fee2349225e
And now imagine such a glue could be produced in great masses synthetically in the future!
Freaking barnacles. Genius.