Are the creatures too aggressive?
AweFilafilOsophy
Join Date: 2016-10-05 Member: 222877Members
Join Date: 2016-10-05 Member: 222877Members
Comments
The predator to prey relationship looks like this
mpalalive.org/uploads/classroom_images/Pyramid.png
Just one Reaper would probably need the entire Subnautica map to sustain it. There are far too many bone sharks down in the aphotic zones where nothing grows to sustain the herbivores. And eff those effing sandsharks. Hate those guys.
I get that there's a limited number of fish assets and they can't make species to match actual oceanic diversity. Maybe the euphotic zones produce really energy-rich detritus that feeds the lower zones. I could understand healthy ecosystems surrounding the many deep ocean vents.
You could honestly get away with fewer predators and make them more aggressive. But that might be too boring. I get that this is a game and the devs have a vision for it.
Although otherwise the creature behaviour types are too simple, roughly being either aggressive, passive or elusive (never curious for example). I think differences in behaviour between species is quite well done at the moment. One can pretty reliably predict how a certain species will act and it should be so. But there could also be minor differences in behaviour between individuals of a certain species. We know this is a thing on Earth so why not in Subnautica? Who knows, it might even serve to make creatures more lifelike.
Also creatures should have more than one behaviour type per species. I mean who's to say a Sand Shark must be a raging nutsack 24/7? Does it never sleep, rest or something?
And what about behaviour individually vs. when in a group?
That would work, because before they would chase you off and then go back to their territory. Now they just hang around where they lose you. also if less spawned that would help.
The critters do not wander, 'tis how the engine is designed so I doubt this will happen anytime soon. If ever.
Their aggression is too predictable
IRL, what makes sharks terrifying is that they are usually safe... but... you never know...
Imagine letting your guard down around a well fed Reaper Leviathan... because usually they are not hungry.
However, too much of the creature behavior, especially with recent updates, just tells the player, "Go away. You can't get rid of these things, so find another spot to look for resources, and don't build here." Sand sharks, bonesharks, and crabsquid come to mind. Now we have a newly fleshed-out zone that includes crabsquid and aggressive river prowlers. They already shut me out of the Deep Grand Reef, and I guess now I won't be building in the Lost River either.
Adding content that the player is expected to avoid is a waste of development resources and reduces gameplay scope and duration.
Hopefully they change the creature behaviors in the future to make them more natural.
actually that's a great idea. There's already a message you get from the PDA when you first enter the Aurora, warning that human remains have been found in local fauna. having it so the scanner can alert you if a stalker is full or not would fit right in line with that!
So yeah, keep them as aggressive, and make some stuff even more aggressive, but lower those damn spawn rates and spawn caps.
Sandsharks should stay hidden for hunting during the day (still waiting for them to be able to pop out of the sand) but inactive at night (to balance, make biters more active at night). Biters should have medium aggression in packs but once alone run off. Or better yet they could utilize swarming tactics.
Reaper Leviathans should honestly be a consistent threat, but they can enter certain regions or are active in some regions more than others at certain times of day.
Aggression should depend a lot on situation. Are you impeding on territory? Are you yourself being aggressive, and if so, how does the creature respond? Are you in a machine? I think many aggression and population issues would be solved if creature intelligence were more individual, each creature being a completely special case and depending on the time of day and how fed the creature is, can determine how aggressive, if at all, the creature can be.
This is a brilliant post. I hope the developers read what you wrote and can make this happen.
So does this guy;
I just posted this in another thread, but it applies here too.
I think it's both. Some creatures are too aggressive (or at least too easy to trigger the aggro) but others are not aggressive or enough of a threat.
You know that feeling or permanent worry or concern you get when you're in Reaper territory? That needs to happen in other places too. I don't want to feel "safe" anywhere, except maybe in the safe shallows, and even that shouldn't be 100% because a Stalker could have followed you.
TL;DR...
Less low-level "nuisance" threats, more terrifying and dangerous threats.
Agree. Going into reaper territory to get to the front of the Aurora is probably one of the most terrifying parts in the game imo.
However, I don't think that feeling of dread is needed everywhere. I would love to take time and appreciate the beauty of the lost river, or the kelp biome, without being attacked by a pack of the ghost fish(forgot their names) or a pack of stalkers. I'm not saying get completely rid of all fear and danger, but maybe tone it down a bit in some areas
I notice, however, that ever new game I start for the last two stable builds the safe shallows isn't. I get those long toothy fish and the sand sharks in there before too long.
actually threat is everywhere, everytime.
Threat really need to stay everywhere, but not everytime
though I think this question is a bit misleading. the issue may be the number of aggressive stalkers, not the aggressiveness itself.
I do think there are factors to the behavior of lifeforms that aren't being considered; age, hunger, pack mentality (their role/relationship in the pack).
how threatened are the animals by me?
are they curious of new things, or fearful. Do they approach or observe. (where I think age is a factor). Do they become acclimated to my presence?
eggs, if left alone, should be in VERY well hidden nests or have mothers nearby or a defense mechenism. Gaspod eggs, for example, should secrete a poison, like the adults, one touched.
Sandsharks can hide next to their eggs, three or four at a time, under the sand.
Stalkers should have well hidden nests.
So on.
Many animals use a method of reproduction called "Broadcast spawning" where they release eggs into the water at random and hope some of them survive. However, your point still stands in this case because most eggs in Subnautica are laid alone, and there are relatively few of them. In contrast, the Atlantic Cod can produce literally millions of eggs.
The Biome is named Safe Shallows so there should not be this many predators right at the start of a game for the player. Plus, as time passes there usually is new predators settling in near the starting ones and before you know it, reaching your Lifepod becomes a high-danger run for your life!
My suggestion is either remove Sandsharks/Stalkers from the vicinity of the Lifepod or rename the biome to somethin else cuz right now the word ''Safe'' isnt really fitting anymore.
Beside this matter i do think that the number of predators and their level of agressivity is right on! Good job Devs
"I sure hope I don't get attacked"
and if you are attacked, then it's "oh shit, run!"
This is not the experience that subnautica's predators provide at all. Indeed, I would equate how they feel much more to mosquitos:
"Ach, go away."
"Oh no, it's another one."
" Not again. How many of these things are there?"
"Quit bugging me!"
Predators are a constant annoyance, rather than an occasional threat.