Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 6910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 181

Thread: Carnivore AI / Ecosystem Balance

  1. #151
    Originally Posted by Dino droppings? Droppings? View Post (Source)
    Go into Google Scholar and type 'Predator surplus killing' and read till your hearts content.
    That’s what I did in the first place. There’s still no proof. Only assumptions.

    So I’ll just rest my case here. If you had proof you would bring it to the table.

    So yes animals do surplus killings and zoo’s doesn’t mix apex predators and prey for a reason. Let’s just leave it at that.

  2. #152
    Originally Posted by MarcWP View Post (Source)
    Well foxes does actually go in henhouses and kill everything without eating them. And I also posted a link to the leopards killing 51 animals without reason, so yes it happens. And of course it doesn't happen in captivity, because you don't mix predators and prey. But if you did, they would def die over time.

    And yes a T-Rex probably had a territory of over 200 kilometers, but again it can't REACH all animals inside this zone without walking around alot. It takes time. No one can kill anything in a 200 km radius in an instant. But again we're talking about limited space here, where they CAN actually get to the other animals right away. The point you're making about it killing everything in sight, well there's very little inside as no animal can look 200 kilometers. Makes sense doesn't it? You think it can spot everything in a 200 km radius?

    But then please explain why animals do surplus killings? And why cats kill without being hungry and play around with their victim not killing it. You seem to know, but never told me.

    Can you please quote where I said, that animals could kill everything inside their territory? I never did mate. It's impossible to kill everything inside such a big amount of space... A paddock or limited space on the other hand is a different story. Like in the game.
    Well foxes does actually go in henhouses and kill everything without eating them. And I also posted a link to the leopards killing 51 animals without reason, so yes it happens. And of course it doesn't happen in captivity, because you don't mix predators and prey. But if you did, they would def die over time.

    Come on, there are the reason why i said it, 'you need to think again about term of 'killing for fun'. Now think, you have brain to do that.
    If, The fox decided go to henhouses to get some KFC party and aware about the risk (frontal contact with the owner for example), are they still do it just for fun??? come on..
    About leopards and the other things from your 'sources', i'm sorry i will not going to another long post even some of them i can explain it to you and some not (Especially with the leopard, cz that things are exactly what happened here with tigers / elephant) cz there are so many variables on there which can become a reasons why that things can be happened so you need to research it by yourself. I just can give you some hint for your start: Human, Area, and Situation itself are usually the main reason but it can be for another else.
    About Captivity, Have you ever seen raptors (bird of prey if you don't understand) live with rabbits and marmots in same cage without any issue even after those rodents intend to be prey for them by their keeper?? oc not.
    Back when i was in college, one of faculty in my university (Bio faculty oc) had 2 eagles (i forgot the species) as their pet at their side yard and their cage are relatively not big. It just small cage for such beautiful animal like eagle. I think, the keeper are lazy dude who too lazy to do his job so rather than doing his job routinely, he just put 4-5 rabbits inside their cage for 1-2 months and got not issue at all or i can give you other story about my retics but it will make this post longer, so back to the point.
    Even Captive animals only kills when they need to do. There always the reasonable purposes behind their act so because we can't understand the purposes it doesn't mean they simply 'Kill for fun' just like you and your source think! (Not to mention that you put another wrong statement about pack of 9 wolf who killed 19 elks but you said wiped out entire herd in your previous post so maybe you need to read it again ). That's the different point of view between us, mate.

    And yes a T-Rex probably had a territory of over 200 kilometers, but again it can't REACH all animals inside this zone without walking around alot. It takes time. No one can kill anything in a 200 km radius in an instant. But again we're talking about limited space here, where they CAN actually get to the other animals right away. The point you're making about it killing everything in sight, well there's very little inside as no animal can look 200 kilometers. Makes sense doesn't it? You think it can spot everything in a 200 km radius?

    ohhh..So based on that statement, You think tigers/lion not kill everything inside their territory just because it can't REACH all animals inside it??? Really??
    Have you ever seen herds of wildebeest/zebras grassing peacefully only got 300-400 m distance from full belly and sleepy of lion pride because it had half ton buffalo as their dinner last nite??
    Go, do your research!

    But then please explain why animals do surplus killings? And why cats kill without being hungry and play around with their victim not killing it. You seem to know, but never told me.
    AGAIN, you bring DOMESTIC ANIMAL. WT...
    I'll try explain it AGAIN but you really should not bring your cat in this conversation again next time, man.
    If you talk about why 'wild animals' do surplus killings (even tho i'm disagreed with that terms just like 'killing for fun' term like i mention it before on my whole post all this time)

    So many and different reason, depends on the species and the situation itself,. I even have provided you with example of bears. go check it again!
    or another exams from your sources :
    'In one case in 2016, a pack of nine individuals brought down 19 elk in a single night, leaving most of the bodies to rot. Why would they do this, especially in winter, if they didn't need to eat? Some people may say they do so for sport or fun, but the fact is that wolves may kill like this in some misguided effort to save food for later.'
    Who else have this habits?? Bears and Leopards.

    And why cats kill without being hungry and play around with their victim not killing it.

    I told you before, is in their blood and need to keep it sharp. not like wild animals (we talk about adult one here, not juvenile. although, not all of juvenile need target practice to help them to learn how to kill).
    Why?? because wild animals do it routinely to keep them survive in wild so their abs will still sharps all the time.
    It's just like if you are low class worker at some steel factory. You doesn't need to workout at gym anymore, cz you workout all the time at your workplace, but otherwise, if you just some fat boy who sit around in front of your computer desk, you will need go to gym sometime, to burn those fat and keep you healthy.
    And pls don't ask why cats keep their wild instinct after all, even after they doesn't need it anymore. I won't explain it to you or better you can ask it directly to their maker.

    Can you please quote where I said, that animals could kill everything inside their territory? I never did mate. It's impossible to kill everything inside such a big amount of space... A paddock or limited space on the other hand is a different story. Like in the game.

    They were 6 lions that KILLED everything even other lions and took over the largest territory ever by lions.
    Surplus killings are found regularly in wolf packs for example, where they kill everything in sight without eating the corpses.
    Wolfs are known to do this pretty often. Kill entire herds of elk and leaving them there...


    All quote by you.

    EDIT: You also haven't answered my question yet!

  3. #153
    Originally Posted by Winterwalker View Post (Source)
    I think I might have it actually. The one thing the carnivores don't do in JWE .. is stay on the kill.

    In reality they really would stay on, defend it from others (until a bigger predator comes along) and would eat and eat until they can barely move probably, let alone kill anything else right away. In game they're having a few bites and moving on so hunger can also play a part however that's not to say they wouldn't fancy another go as there's still that endorphin/adrenalin element, thrill of kill, that comes from 'the old' (reptilian) brain we all share (you, me, birds, dinosaurs). That adrenalin and dominance makes you feel GOOD (a bit like this thread) and so a pic of a (red tail) hawk 'mantling' over a kill.

    Until she does calm down, she's physiologically UNABLE to let go
    (though that's another story peculiar to raptors, genus of modern-day birds with talons)

    Ostensibly she's hiding her prize from other birds but it will take her several minutes to calm down a.k.a. You're BOTH right.

    So I'd throw in that it would be pretty artificial to 'tone down' the killer instinct, whereas it might be more realistic to let the animal settle on a kill for longer. It would slow the kill rate down a bit - helpful to ecosystems - without nerfiung the carnivores. There could be an element of what happens if the animal is disturbed (and effectively driven OFF the kill) which could come from being gawped at by park visitors though of course I don't think that's being modelled in the game as of right now.
    That would, indeed, be quite cool and would slow the process down... and would also be more natural / expected, even.
    Perhaps even, in the case of raptors, allowing its pack to share the spoils... they are half way there with the circle gathering for 'socialising'

  4. #154
    Originally Posted by Winterwalker View Post (Source)
    I think I might have it actually. The one thing the carnivores don't do in JWE .. is stay on the kill.

    In reality they really would stay on, defend it from others (until a bigger predator comes along) and would eat and eat until they can barely move probably, let alone kill anything else right away. In game they're having a few bites and moving on so hunger can also play a part however that's not to say they wouldn't fancy another go as there's still that endorphin/adrenalin element, thrill of kill, that comes from 'the old' (reptilian) brain we all share (you, me, birds, dinosaurs). That adrenalin and dominance makes you feel GOOD (a bit like this thread) and so a pic of a (red tail) hawk 'mantling' over a kill.

    Until she does calm down, she's physiologically UNABLE to let go
    (though that's another story peculiar to raptors, genus of modern-day birds with talons)

    Ostensibly she's hiding her prize from other birds but it will take her several minutes to calm down
    a.k.a. You're BOTH right.

    So I'd throw in that it would be pretty artificial to 'tone down' the killer instinct, whereas it might be more realistic to let the animal settle on a kill for longer. It would slow the kill rate down a bit - helpful to ecosystems - without nerfiung the carnivores. There could be an element of what happens if the animal is disturbed (and effectively driven OFF the kill) which could come from being gawped at by park visitors though of course I don't think that's being modelled in the game as of right now.
    You just nailed it my man.

    But the thing is, we have missions in the game that requires fighting. And it would be a pain to sit and just wait for the animals to act. Guess that’s why they made the dinosaurs actively seek the other ones, maybe a bit faster than animals today would in a paddock.

  5. #155
    Originally Posted by Winterwalker View Post (Source)
    I think I might have it actually. The one thing the carnivores don't do in JWE .. is stay on the kill.

    In reality they really would stay on, defend it from others (until a bigger predator comes along) and would eat and eat until they can barely move probably, let alone kill anything else right away. In game they're having a few bites and moving on so hunger can also play a part however that's not to say they wouldn't fancy another go as there's still that endorphin/adrenalin element, thrill of kill, that comes from 'the old' (reptilian) brain we all share (you, me, birds, dinosaurs). That adrenalin and dominance makes you feel GOOD (a bit like this thread) and so a pic of a (red tail) hawk 'mantling' over a kill.

    Until she does calm down, she's physiologically UNABLE to let go
    (though that's another story peculiar to raptors, genus of modern-day birds with talons)

    Ostensibly she's hiding her prize from other birds but it will take her several minutes to calm down
    a.k.a. You're BOTH right.

    So I'd throw in that it would be pretty artificial to 'tone down' the killer instinct, whereas it might be more realistic to let the animal settle on a kill for longer. It would slow the kill rate down a bit - helpful to ecosystems - without nerfiung the carnivores. There could be an element of what happens if the animal is disturbed (and effectively driven OFF the kill) which could come from being gawped at by park visitors though of course I don't think that's being modelled in the game as of right now.
    I'll try and be as succint as humanly possible. Fundamentally, the usage of words like 'fun' and 'thrill' implies a very specific set of anthropocentric emotional responses to stimuli. To map intrinsicly human responses onto animals is entirely unhelpful when attempting to understand behavioural phenomena. The reason for this is that even our own emotional responses to stimuli is the result of evolution. Therefore, instead of attempting to psych-analyse the motives of non-human animals, it's far more useful to understand the benefits those behaviours afford the animal in an evolutionary context.

    Does that make sense?

    I take issue with some of the anthropocentric language used in this thread simply because of the implications it has for the way we view certain natural phenomena.
    There is literally no scientific evidence to support the fact, as has been suggested in this thread, that non-human animals engage in killing for pleasure.

  6. #156
    Originally Posted by FX2K View Post (Source)
    That would, indeed, be quite cool and would slow the process down... and would also be more natural / expected, even.
    Perhaps even, in the case of raptors, allowing its pack to share the spoils... they are half way there with the circle gathering for 'socialising'
    Raptors doing that would be awesome. Gets into advanced AI territory maybe too but scavenging also, I'd love to see.

    I don't think the idea behind removing carcasses to prevent disease is bad but do agree (with many actually) you're hurried into it, probably too quickly for it to be very enjoyable game wise. How about instead of - or in addition to - 'dead dino' notification, you got a second .. "a dinosaur is decomposing the guests say it stinks!" alert, some minutes later. (To be honest that might happen already for all I know .. has anyone left one to go bad?? I might try one this evening)

    Meanwhile, smaller carnivores (or the big one again) get to fight over it, preferable to a feeder for intensity of visiting or defending a kill that smells of T-Rex - which takes the pressure off your feeders too? Advanced but doable I'd reckon. (Small Carnivore A kills herbivore, Large Carnivore B completes maze twice as fast!)

  7. #157
    Originally Posted by Dino droppings? Droppings? View Post (Source)
    I take issue with some of the anthropocentric language used in this thread simply because of the implications it has for the way we view certain natural phenomena.
    There is literally no scientific evidence to support the fact, as has been suggested in this thread, that non-human animals engage in killing for pleasure.
    And there is literally no scientific evidence to support the fact, as has been suggested in this thread, that non-human animals doesn’t engage in killing for pleasure.

    And if we can’t use human terminology we can never have a conversation about anything in the universe besides ourselves?

  8. #158
    Originally Posted by Winterwalker View Post (Source)
    Raptors doing that would be awesome. Gets into advanced AI territory maybe too but scavenging also, I'd love to see.

    I don't think the idea behind removing carcasses to prevent disease is bad but do agree (with many actually) you're hurried into it, probably too quickly for it to be very enjoyable game wise. How about instead of - or in addition to - 'dead dino' notification, you got a second .. "a dinosaur is decomposing the guests say it stinks!" alert, some minutes later. (To be honest that might happen already for all I know .. has anyone left one to go bad?? I might try one this evening)

    Meanwhile, smaller carnivores (or the big one again) get to fight over it, preferable to a feeder for intensity of visiting or defending a kill that smells of T-Rex - which takes the pressure off your feeders too? Advanced but doable I'd reckon. (Small Carnivore A kills herbivore, Large Carnivore B completes maze twice as fast!)
    Would be nice!

  9. #159
    Originally Posted by MarcWP View Post (Source)
    And there is literally no scientific evidence to support the fact, as has been suggested in this thread, that non-human animals doesn’t engage in killing for pleasure.

    And if we can’t use human terminology we can never have a conversation about anything in the universe besides ourselves?
    *facepalm*

  10. #160
    Originally Posted by Dino droppings? Droppings? View Post (Source)
    I take issue with some of the anthropocentric language used in this thread simply because of the implications it has for the way we view certain natural phenomena.
    While I agree with you about anthropomorphising I'd say still say that remain two ways to think about it .. the biologist and the handler. Ultimately neither can be 100% separated from the human perspective, though biology will obviously try not to. Certainly from a handling/management point of view though you actively want succinct terms of reference that allow you to communicate the condition of the animal in terms of husbandry to people who may or not be qualified or even need to fully understand in order to contribute valuably to that team or task. Anthropomorphisis might happen but is not the aim, or ultimately important in contexts (eg. if interventions cause stress and you need to get the job done fast).

    It is interesting (though maybe off topic deserving new / thread) but it was mentioned earlier that 'fun' or 'pleasure' is probably a bit off the mark, though I'd still argue that there is genuine biological advantage to having a deep (emotional) reaction that drives you to the next kill, as a predator, learned as a juvenile. Where, if you derive some form of connection you're driven to perfect skills or simply to associate some feeling of excitement (when you see a small wriggling but abstract prey) with food incoming and to do that both at an age and as a species, where nobody is going to sit you down and explain the food pyramid to you. NONE of that is based on words, however (especially writing in a forum or in a biology paper) we all are of course forced to use words to try to describe it and that introduces approximations, shorcuts, hypothesis as well as experimental error from the word go.

  11. #161
    Originally Posted by Winterwalker View Post (Source)
    How about instead of - or in addition to - 'dead dino' notification, you got a second .. "a dinosaur is decomposing the guests say it stinks!" alert, some minutes later. (To be honest that might happen already for all I know .. has anyone left one to go bad?? I might try one this evening)
    They go into a state of decaying, after 2 minutes. Then a further 8 minutes until they disappear.
    A dead dino does have a negative rating, my T-rex had -78 for welfare and the Gallimimus -4

    Whilst checking that, I also noticed.. in the maze... if I had one Gallimimus in an enclosure, with a closed gate.. the only other dino, an indo wouldn't head into that part of the maze and would only go towards the other empty enclosures with open gates (no food sources, but water). If I then opened it, it would almost instantly turn around... close it again... turn around. So it's certainly forming a complete path to prey, which I think it shouldn't be doing.

  12. #162
    Originally Posted by Winterwalker View Post (Source)
    While I agree with you about anthropomorphising I'd say still say that remain two ways to think about it .. the biologist and the handler. Ultimately neither can be 100% separated from the human perspective, though biology will obviously try not to. Certainly from a handling/management point of view though you actively want succinct terms of reference that allow you to communicate the condition of the animal in terms of husbandry to people who may or not be qualified or even need to fully understand in order to contribute valuably to that team or task. Anthropomorphisis might happen but is not the aim, or ultimately important in contexts (especially where interv entions cause stress and you need to get the job done fast).

    It is interesting (though maybe off topic deserving new / thread) but it was mentioned earlier that 'fun' or 'pleasure' is probably a bit off the mark, though I'd still argue that there is genuine biological advantage to having a deep (emotional) reaction that drives you to the next kill, as a predator, learned as a juvenile. Where, if you derive some form of connection you're driven to perfect skills or simply to associate some feeling of excitement (when you see a small wriggling but abstract prey) with food incoming and to do that both at an age and as a species, where nobody is going to sit you down and explain the food pyramid to you. NONE of that is based on words, however (especially writing in a forum or in a biology paper) we all are forced to use words to try to describe it and that introduces approximations, shorcuts, hypothesis and experimental error, from the word go.
    Indeed. Why I wrote “fun” as it’s a human word attached to a certain feeling. Might not be the exact correct term, but just what we interpret. I truly believe animals are more similiar to humans, than we give them credit for. But we’ll never know.

  13. #163
    Originally Posted by Winterwalker View Post (Source)
    While I agree with you about anthropomorphising I'd say still say that remain two ways to think about it .. the biologist and the handler. Ultimately neither can be 100% separated from the human perspective, though biology will obviously try not to. Certainly from a handling/management point of view though you actively want succinct terms of reference that allow you to communicate the condition of the animal in terms of husbandry to people who may or not be qualified or even need to fully understand in order to contribute valuably to that team or task. Anthropomorphisis might happen but is not the aim, or ultimately important in contexts (eg. if interventions cause stress and you need to get the job done fast).

    It is interesting (though maybe off topic deserving new / thread) but it was mentioned earlier that 'fun' or 'pleasure' is probably a bit off the mark, though I'd still argue that there is genuine biological advantage to having a deep (emotional) reaction that drives you to the next kill, as a predator, learned as a juvenile. Where, if you derive some form of connection you're driven to perfect skills or simply to associate some feeling of excitement (when you see a small wriggling but abstract prey) with food incoming and to do that both at an age and as a species, where nobody is going to sit you down and explain the food pyramid to you. NONE of that is based on words, however (especially writing in a forum or in a biology paper) we all are of course forced to use words to try to describe it and that introduces approximations, shorcuts, hypothesis as well as experimental error from the word go.
    That is an interesting point and it's something I briefly alluded to earlier. I could easily imagine there being an advantage to evolving some sort of associative psychological positive-feedback mechanism when engaging in certain baheviours. Sex is a good example. However, this is where it's vitally important that we are hyper specific with what we mean when we use words like 'fun'. 'Fun' in this context is not the same as when we describe playing JWE as 'fun' (or not fun), and nor I imagine is it 'pleasurable' in the same way a serial-killer finds pleasure in torturing his victims. It's simply an innate behavioural adaptation and not a conscious, premeditated desicion.

    Just out of curiosity, what did you think of my obesity analogy? Do you see the parallels between us gorging ourselves to death due to an unprecedented abundance of food and predatorial surplus killings?

  14. #164
    Originally Posted by MarcWP View Post (Source)
    Indeed. Why I wrote “fun” as it’s a human word attached to a certain feeling. Might not be the exact correct term, but just what we interpret. I truly believe animals are more similiar to humans, than we give them credit for. But we’ll never know.
    Please look up 'Anthropomorphism'.

  15. #165
    Originally Posted by FX2K View Post (Source)
    They go into a state of decaying, after 2 minutes. Then a further 8 minutes until they disappear.
    A dead dino does have a negative rating, my T-rex had -78 for welfare and the Gallimimus -4

    Whilst checking that, I also noticed.. in the maze... if I had one Gallimimus in an enclosure, with a closed gate.. the only other dino, an indo wouldn't head into that part of the maze and would only go towards the other empty enclosures with open gates (no food sources, but water). If I then opened it, it would almost instantly turn around... close it again... turn around. So it's certainly forming a complete path to prey, which I think it shouldn't be doing.
    Good experiment. rep. I've only experimented with gates the animal could see, so didn't have a problem with them exploring it.

    Tricky one I think? You're right that perception radius is too big but I think it depends how it's coded if it's even possible for the code to wait until the indo 'sees' the gate while wandering (depends how the pathing is being generated) .. I get the feeling that couldn't ever be perfect - and it is a simulation after all - but the illusion could be improved with smaller (sensor) range if you will.

    You might still have to explain it away a bit, with 'good hearing, great smell' .. 'smelled the Galli', 'heard the gate'? It's going to be limited because it's a sim but definitely good science you're doing.

Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 6910111213 LastLast