04LeonhardtI came here to laugh at youJoin Date: 2015-08-01Member: 206618Members
edited August 2015
The funniest thing is that same people will support building an ugly metal structure on the back of a beautiful, defenseless creature, yet will vehemently oppose the addition of any sort of weapon because "WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HARM THEM!!!"
Has anyone considered that the reefbacks are pretty clearly not actually single creatures, but rather colony organisms?
Where are you getting this information?
They are clearly a single creature.
The stuff that grows on their backs might be considered a colony, but the Reefback is one creature.
"if you control its "mind" - there is not such a thing like "acting against its will" anymore. "
If you control its mind, everything it does is acting on your will, not its own. You've subjugated it. That's why the point lacks a logical internal consistency.
But as I said before, it's a non-point until it's actually permitted in-game - and given UWE's position on weapons and violence, I am confident that it's on the list of things that won't ever happen.
You want a giant mobile floating base? Build a Cyclops. You still want to harass Reefbacks? Blow your horn as you pass them by.
You know this is a game for kids to! Should we support behaviors like putting stuff on wild animals? Like some kids actully put metal rods threw fishes and set them free and see how they try to survive with the handicap?
Respect for animals is realy important even if it's in a game couse it can have influence on real life kids especially when the game is so realistic.
A fascinating idea, which would probably produce the most awesome looking bases, still..
Building on a floating creature/microecosystem would probably eventually kill it; added extra weight, limiting exposure to sunlight and so on. I don't see a reason to add an in-game mechanism to do that, because I don't want to mess with the life of harmless megafauna, unless of course my life depended on it.
Reefbacks may seem impervious to everything, like floating islands or something (which they are in-game, for now at least). But still, it requires very special and unique circumstances for this kind of life to develop and exist in the first place; those circumstances probably didn't involve loads of titanium on the back of the creature. Even minor tweaks to these circumstances may be harmful.
but we ARE here to make this place habitable by humans, we are not simply 'observing'.
My point exactly. And, based on how humanity works, our job won't just be to make the planet habitable by humanity... most likely, our original mission was to bend the world to our will.
And, based on how humanity works, our job won't just be to make the planet habitable by humanity... most likely, our original mission was to bend the world to our will.
You mean how humanity worked in the past and works in the present? Who's to say the humanity present in the SN world will act that way?
This a very fundamental question that I've longed for an answer from the devs for so long; what was the purpose of that gigantic wreck of a spaceship in the first place? Terraforming for colonization for sure, but to what extent? What kind of attitude does humanity (or Alterra corp.) have towards local fauna & flora? Do they see them as a resource to be harvested and manipulated as they please? Or are they looking for ways to live along the ecosystems of the world, minimizing their own impact to it?
I personally am totally for having a base on a reefback. Like people keep saying again and again, its not real guys, it cant feel pain, and if you think your going to 'hurt' the reefback, don't build on it. Only thing that puts me off building on them is fear on loosing my base XD
EDIT: The human you are was forced to leave earth, probably because of eco-system collapse and deprivation of resources, meaning humans in the subnautica universe are exactly the same as they are today, just with fancy new tech. So if we had to leave earth because it could no longer support life well, why would we suddenly change the way we have always been just to suit this new planet?
The funniest thing is that same people will support building an ugly metal structure on the back of a beautiful, defenseless creature, yet will vehemently oppose the addition of any sort of weapon because "WE'RE NOT SUPPOSED TO HARM THEM!!!"
BAH build better bases maybe YOURS is a big ugly metal structure, mine are cool... Also I do not oppose weps. because I don't want to hurt the 'native wildlife' but because it would break the game. I HAVE a stasis rifle and knife and in a 10 hour game only killed 1 creature because it takes the fun out of the game if I do. Lets not forget we, our self, are trying to survive in a place where everything is trying to kill us and just like them humans ARE animals (just a tad smarter...usually). I fail to see how us using a creature that huge to build a small base is bad, tons of symbiotic relationships as well as parasitic are natural in the world. Its not like we are drilling giant screws into the creatures back for these that would just be stupid, who would want to build a base on a creature they crippled?
You know this is a game for kids to! Should we support behaviors like putting stuff on wild animals? Like some kids actully put metal rods threw fishes and set them free and see how they try to survive with the handicap?
Respect for animals is realy important even if it's in a game couse it can have influence on real life kids especially when the game is so realistic.
well...EVERYTHING can effect kids, and a base is a lot smaller in size comparison that a harness on a dog (since u don't want things put on animals). Or maybe those collars with rods that choke a dog out when they resist that people can REGULARLY USE? Not to mention they have shock collars to shock a dog into submission. Also putting stuff on the animal is different from in it, I bet the kid who wanted to handicap the animal didn't try to put the rod ontop of it first. All of this...is better than a base that is probably constructed with some kind of suction cups? The things are massive and are not going to be impeded by the small base. Also I bet Jeffery Dahmer was around long before building bases on reafbacks was around.
"if you control its "mind" - there is not such a thing like "acting against its will" anymore. "
If you control its mind, everything it does is acting on your will, not its own. You've subjugated it. That's why the point lacks a logical internal consistency.
Is this bad? Sure it SOUNDS terrible, but
^ dog example, most people take a dog into their house and then when it craps, SMACKS it to teach it thats bad inside, rewards it for doing tricks, and basically teach this dog to NOT be its normal self, crap in certain areas, perform tricks to get attention which most social things need. Furthermore, if my wife offers me nice things every time I do the dishes, sure im being conditioned to doing the dishes, but at that point im happy about it and don't really mind the change in will. Am i still acting on my will then if I do the dishes before she offers something next time? How about the dog for pawing at the door so it can crap outside? Have we all been mind controlled against our will in an atrocious matter? I grantee it happens a TON around the world and most people wont even blink at it. So whats the difference? A world where almost everything is trying to kill us? in that case the huge reafbacks will probably offer shelter from reapers with their giant size and thus be beneficial to build close to for survival alone.
Last of this long message, I view this game as a simulation type game where I get immersed in the world, the opportunities, and the possibilities. If something even gets a 50% yes and 50% no, for a simulation type game the ABILITY should be there to make it simulation. If I was that man with this technology THAT would be a possibility I could make happen. I should have the ability to make it. The repercussions of NOT building it is satisfaction to you and others who don't want it, and very little in-game handicap. Simulations lets you do things you normally wouldn't be able to do, it shouldn't hold our hand on morality of some. I don't care if kids play this, but this is a game where monsters eat other monster fish, and an eel will eat you ALIVE, building a base on a giant whale thing isn't high on my 'bad-for-kids' radar. BTW thanks if you actually took time to read the whole thing lol it was long
Hey whats different from riding a horse? An idea: The possibility to tame and drill (some) creatures in subnautica (as they do with horses) could be a motivating solution to control them non violent! ;-)
I personally believe the character should have the absolute freedom to do what they want. If you want to build off a reefback, go for it. If not, don't. Do you want to use weapons? Cool. If not, don't research them. Regardless of what I want or what I don't want, everyone should at least have the option.
I like the idea, but I believe there would be some technical limitations regarding having such a big and complex entity in the game. It would be lag central.
If you want to build off a reefback, go for it. If not, don't.
That's what I think about it. If you don't want to build on a Reefback, then don't build on a Reefback, but at least realize that other people might want to.
Not building seabases (cuz its just wrong to be building on these guys) , but like gardens(creepvine bloodkelp acidshroom etc) and a beacon that follows it
Basically what i deduce from these comments is that the people who dont think it should happen are basically vegans / very animal friendly. Jesus this is a game and if you dont wan to build on a reefback you dont have to. I personally think it would be really cool as long as the ai for the adult reefbacks isnt too stupid.
Wow, people are really getting upset over something that isn't even real! That's AMAZING how much people care about virtual thing BUT NEARLY NOBODY CARES ABOU IRL ECOSYSTEMS!! Great idea by the way, I don't think that there's anything wrong with building on it, it does have a freaking REEF on its back does it not. It would be very strong. There's nothing inhuman about it at all, it would barely notice us and we would be building into the possible sand and sandstone on its back anyway, no spikes into its back.
The developers should find another way to make them important, maybe a special kind of flora spawn on top of them and you have to collect it for something
On Reefback building: Hell yes, that would be so cool! And the supports for your base aren't pylons that are driven into anything; they seem to me like feet that just sit/stand on the ground to 'level' the base.
Hmm... "HeadHunter? EnglishInfidel?" Why do these people who 'disagree' have these oh-so-edgy sounding names? I guess Disagree McDisFace just doesn't sound edgy enough...
On Reefback building: Hell yes, that would be so cool! And the supports for your base aren't pylons that are driven into anything; they seem to me like feet that just sit/stand on the ground to 'level' the base.
Hmm... "HeadHunter? EnglishInfidel?" Why do these people who 'disagree' have these oh-so-edgy sounding names? I guess Disagree McDisFace just doesn't sound edgy enough...
Yes, "dealwithitdog". What an edgy name that is. Also, EnglishInfidel hasn't answered the poll or posted here
It could be annoying locating your base, but I don't see why you shouldn't at least be able to build one. If you want to, then that's fine. If you don't then you don't. Personally I'd build just an outpost on its back, not my main base, but it could still be useful.
Also if fish are going to be swimming around on their backs, along with plant life, how is that different to having a sea base on your back? The Reefback'll be fine.
The idea of "colonizing" an adult reefback sounds nice but i would limit it to only a very small base for passively observing. So no swimming fortress of doom but a scientific station to explore vast ares without risking your hide. Ankor a small observationroom with a new docking bay for a seamoth and you're all set to enjoy a wonderful ride
Leave the poor creatures alone, they're completely harmless. It's a stupid idea. If this is permitted, what next? Build connecting bases on multiple adult reefbacks?
I personally don't think UWE stands on any side for violence aspect in the game. They provide alien containment, which means you can breed wild big bad fish as your little toy pet. You can chuck fish into the bioreactor just for power.
There's also no weapon or tools for killing the wildlife except the knife.
The only angle i see UWE loves violence is that they love to see us getting bitten by sandsharks and bonesharks, electrocuted by ampeels, and our vehicles wrecked by reaper leviathan. They love to torture us, the players, and i am loving their torture so far. Talk about masochism.
A Seabase is static. A Reefback is a mobile creature. Different entity types. Mashing them together won't work and adapting the engine to make it work isn't worth the resources just for a gimmick.
Comments
Where are you getting this information?
They are clearly a single creature.
The stuff that grows on their backs might be considered a colony, but the Reefback is one creature.
If you control its mind, everything it does is acting on your will, not its own. You've subjugated it. That's why the point lacks a logical internal consistency.
But as I said before, it's a non-point until it's actually permitted in-game - and given UWE's position on weapons and violence, I am confident that it's on the list of things that won't ever happen.
You want a giant mobile floating base? Build a Cyclops. You still want to harass Reefbacks? Blow your horn as you pass them by.
Respect for animals is realy important even if it's in a game couse it can have influence on real life kids especially when the game is so realistic.
Building on a floating creature/microecosystem would probably eventually kill it; added extra weight, limiting exposure to sunlight and so on. I don't see a reason to add an in-game mechanism to do that, because I don't want to mess with the life of harmless megafauna, unless of course my life depended on it.
Reefbacks may seem impervious to everything, like floating islands or something (which they are in-game, for now at least). But still, it requires very special and unique circumstances for this kind of life to develop and exist in the first place; those circumstances probably didn't involve loads of titanium on the back of the creature. Even minor tweaks to these circumstances may be harmful.
I have two ant farms at home.
My point exactly. And, based on how humanity works, our job won't just be to make the planet habitable by humanity... most likely, our original mission was to bend the world to our will.
You mean how humanity worked in the past and works in the present? Who's to say the humanity present in the SN world will act that way?
This a very fundamental question that I've longed for an answer from the devs for so long; what was the purpose of that gigantic wreck of a spaceship in the first place? Terraforming for colonization for sure, but to what extent? What kind of attitude does humanity (or Alterra corp.) have towards local fauna & flora? Do they see them as a resource to be harvested and manipulated as they please? Or are they looking for ways to live along the ecosystems of the world, minimizing their own impact to it?
You have a point. But, I'm one of those people who believes that human nature will never change. We don't just explore, we conquer.
EDIT: The human you are was forced to leave earth, probably because of eco-system collapse and deprivation of resources, meaning humans in the subnautica universe are exactly the same as they are today, just with fancy new tech. So if we had to leave earth because it could no longer support life well, why would we suddenly change the way we have always been just to suit this new planet?
So we don't make the same mistakes lol
What do you guys think about this idea?
That's what I think about it. If you don't want to build on a Reefback, then don't build on a Reefback, but at least realize that other people might want to.
Hmm... "HeadHunter? EnglishInfidel?" Why do these people who 'disagree' have these oh-so-edgy sounding names? I guess Disagree McDisFace just doesn't sound edgy enough...
Yes, "dealwithitdog". What an edgy name that is. Also, EnglishInfidel hasn't answered the poll or posted here
Also if fish are going to be swimming around on their backs, along with plant life, how is that different to having a sea base on your back? The Reefback'll be fine.
I personally don't think UWE stands on any side for violence aspect in the game. They provide alien containment, which means you can breed wild big bad fish as your little toy pet. You can chuck fish into the bioreactor just for power.
There's also no weapon or tools for killing the wildlife except the knife.
The only angle i see UWE loves violence is that they love to see us getting bitten by sandsharks and bonesharks, electrocuted by ampeels, and our vehicles wrecked by reaper leviathan. They love to torture us, the players, and i am loving their torture so far. Talk about masochism.