at the moment, i'm highly considering just switching to Challenge mode until Franchise is fine-tuned a bit more
Can we stop calling it a community challenge?
- Thread starter Sirlacker
- Start date
we care because it affects us and our games. As a online marketplace, what other players do affects both the prices and the quality of animals we can buy, so it directly impacts our zoos and how we run them.
Instead of having a market place filled with reasonably priced animals with decent genetics, we get overly priced obviously inbred duds. And those prices on those inbred messes means the good stuff is priced even higher than they would be otherwise
it also means the community challenge caters to those inbreeding puppy-mill zoos, rather than to the conservation message the developers try so hard to push with the game. What's the point of a 'release animals into the wild to save wild populations!' message when you're releasing 0 fertility and 0 immunity animals into those wild populations? Sure, it's just a game, but the game tries to push a big education and conservation message, and hten rewards releasing inferior inbred mutants into wild populations, seems a bit backward
How does the community challenge which encourages ppl to farm apes, effect the rest of the game? There are many other animals that all have high price tags and pretty crazy gene pools. The Japanese monkeys are a good example. I feel like it's just the way the game works.
If the market was full of high quality low priced animals, then what? Its just about pretty enclosures? That would kind of ruin a big part of the game for me. Finding the right mate at the right price is fun.
I'm ll for improving things but .. what do you suggest?
If the market was full of high quality low priced animals, then what? Its just about pretty enclosures? That would kind of ruin a big part of the game for me. Finding the right mate at the right price is fun.
I'm ll for improving things but .. what do you suggest?
i suggest inbred animals not being allowed to contribute to community challenges. They go agianst everything Frontier has stated the game is about, so why allow them to count for it? I also think they should not be released into the wild, since that's part of their appeal to puppy-mill zoos is to just release them for quick CC.
inbred, poor gened animals should stay with the person that bred them for their life span. They're not a profitable reward, they're a punishment. Why let them be sold or released, or count for the challenge, when the goal of the game is to NOT do it?
that'd help clean up the marketplace of overpriced crap animals that no one wants as well, and force people to actually breed properly for community challenges instead of just breed siblings and parents together by the dozen
it is still quite possible to make a good profit and have high priced animals without the need of mass breeding inbred cast offs that no one wants
But if they stopped giving the final reward for only the 3 best tier contributors, but give the final reward to the entire community, as the "community" word suggest (and by community it means everyone, not only those who managed to participate), then it would be a good idea.
isnt the final reward just like 500 - 1250 cc? thats so low i wont even bother breeding double of what i need to for the cloths
It's CC and an animal for the final reward.
But even if it's low, it would be fair to make it that since the community won the challenge, the community get the reward and not only the best contributors. Because it splits the community in 3 groups: the farmers with their puppy mills who get to the 3 top tiers, the players who get the milestones rewards and then don't care at all if the challenge is won or not, and those who can't contribute at all or with a very low contributions because they can't participate or don't want to encourage an unfair and unethical gameplay.
Having a better final reward given to everybody would not encourage puppy mills since getting in the top tiers doesn't give anything special and would encourage the 2 other groups to care about completing the challenge.
But even if it's low, it would be fair to make it that since the community won the challenge, the community get the reward and not only the best contributors. Because it splits the community in 3 groups: the farmers with their puppy mills who get to the 3 top tiers, the players who get the milestones rewards and then don't care at all if the challenge is won or not, and those who can't contribute at all or with a very low contributions because they can't participate or don't want to encourage an unfair and unethical gameplay.
Having a better final reward given to everybody would not encourage puppy mills since getting in the top tiers doesn't give anything special and would encourage the 2 other groups to care about completing the challenge.
I disagree with the premise that this is a "puppy mill". We are breeding critically endangered species and returning them to the wild. Is that not a positive thing?
Now, I do agree that they need to find a way to put the "Community" back in Community Challenge. As it works right now, there is absolutely no point in reaching the community goal, which is a real shame. I was hoping for something like a gorilla statue, or decor, enrichment item, climbing blueprint, or a new gorilla habitat or shelter blueprint or something like that. There's so many possibilities, but to end with nothing is just a letdown.
Now, I do agree that they need to find a way to put the "Community" back in Community Challenge. As it works right now, there is absolutely no point in reaching the community goal, which is a real shame. I was hoping for something like a gorilla statue, or decor, enrichment item, climbing blueprint, or a new gorilla habitat or shelter blueprint or something like that. There's so many possibilities, but to end with nothing is just a letdown.
![[VR] Deggial](https://forums-cdn.zaonce.net/data/avatars/m/47/47252.jpg?1553527110){kind=avatar}
The community goals in ED are a grind as well. But at least the reward levels are based on the communal effort.
It heavily influences the market in a negative way. People who bought gorillas and farmed them, sold a certain amount on the market with very high prices because they knew people wanted gorillas for the challenge. It ruins the market when people who have just started playing or those who don't have lots of CC cannot participate because they can't afford a single gorilla. I'm not saying sell them for 20 CC but 10k CC for an inbred gorilla that is about to die? I think that's beyond greedy and ridiculous. I suppose partially the fault goes to Frontier for starting challenges with top tier animals. For example my small zoo cannot handle gorillas right now (I know the challenge is over, I'm just pointing it out for the sake of this discussion). The whole point of Franchise mode is the online market and the community challenges.
Offering a counter argument there. I have a lot of CC, I could afford to bring new bears stock in to stop inbreeding even if the bears cost 10k each. Could you say the same? How about brand new players? Do you not think animals will be listed for even more CC if they prevent people from listing inbred or (poor quality) animals? I mean we're obviously ignoring the cheap Frontier listings here, as people keep claiming they can't do the events because of players overpricing (despite me seeing bears popping up for cash every few minutes). There were cheap frontier tiger/gorilla CC listings too (on the days the market wasn't broken).
To clarify, are you for blocking all inbred animals or just the ones with poor stats in general, becase they're not the same thing. You can get perfect/near perfect 100/100 size/longevity animals from inbreeding, so do you want to blanket ban those too? How about players who list non-inbred animals with poor stats? Are those banned from listing?
Not to mention many of the animals Frontier zoo lists have red stats - Is Frontier still allowed to list terrible quality animals? That would be a tad hypocritical if players can't. The bad animals you see might not even be inbred - they could just be bred from some of the terrible quality animals Frontier zoo often likes to put up.
And no, I'm not one of the people inbreeding bears or exploiting bad game mechanics I have 4 pairs unrelated bears sitting in a zoo I made last night (that's currently making a profit every month). I just buy (most of) my breeding pairs from frontier cash listings. Once again, there's no reason anyone has to spend CC on poor quality animals when Frontier is listing cheap animals. I think the only bears I've bought for CC are the albinos I plan to breed.
While I can understand why you might not like people inbreeding (though you still can't tell which animals are inbed as inbred animals can have good stats) from a conservational message point of view, I don't think trying to blanket ban inbred animals is the solution. I think the community challenges to breed hundreds of thousands of animals (instead of something fun) are the main problem.
Last edited:
I definitely think zero fertility animals should be cash only listing.
I'd usually be against putting any restriction on the market however, considering that zero fertility animals are practically useless long term and that people still sell them for usually quite high, plus taking into consideration that every community challenge involves breeding, I think that this restriction will ultimately be a great thing for the market.
This will mean that new players or new zoos will have a plethora of cash listing animals for sale to get started with even if they are zero fertility they still provide an income and then the harder currency to gather nets you animals that are actually useful.
I'd usually be against putting any restriction on the market however, considering that zero fertility animals are practically useless long term and that people still sell them for usually quite high, plus taking into consideration that every community challenge involves breeding, I think that this restriction will ultimately be a great thing for the market.
This will mean that new players or new zoos will have a plethora of cash listing animals for sale to get started with even if they are zero fertility they still provide an income and then the harder currency to gather nets you animals that are actually useful.
I buy rare young (cheap) zero fertility albino/high stat animals to breed all the time. They breed perfectly well with a proper pairing and research (you will just get less babies per litter).
Most people do tend to sell them super cheap already (comparatively), as zero fertility animals wild-release for next to nothing.
Last edited:
It’s just a bit of fun. So many people have been inbreeding just to get the white/albino versions and selling them for a pretty penny, much worse than being a part of the community challenges. I done the gorilla one, only released 10. Got a reward animal, some cc and avatar costume. Fine by me. I quite enjoyed it. The community challenges aren’t for everyone and that’s fine also.
Then they would need to change their 'diversity' genes that cause breeding two high fertility animals together to give worse results than breeding a high/lower fertility pair together - why would breeding a high fertility animal to another high fertility animal result in a lower fertility animal?. Immunity is the same, but at least there, the genetic variation = healthier, more disease resistant animals makes some sense.
They would also need to remove the breeding bonuses from research (which I imagine would be a vastly unpopular move).
Last edited:
@Kai I'm not sure I follow. Zero fertility should mean infertile with nothing you can do about it. Anything above that should be both chance to actually mate and chance to produce max amount of babies, though obviously the amount of babies would be on a different percentage like it works now.
How would it mean that they need to change their diversity genes though. Two perfectly healthy animals can still and do produce a less than healthy baby from time to time, it's just that two healthy mating animals are less likely to produce unhealthy than inbreeding animals.
Nothing needs to change other than 0% fertility means infertile. This adds another layer of gameplay where you're not always going to be able to breed.
How would it mean that they need to change their diversity genes though. Two perfectly healthy animals can still and do produce a less than healthy baby from time to time, it's just that two healthy mating animals are less likely to produce unhealthy than inbreeding animals.
Nothing needs to change other than 0% fertility means infertile. This adds another layer of gameplay where you're not always going to be able to breed.
Inbred should cause infertiliy.
Real infertiliy.
The problem is, i don't think they are don't show us pedigrees.
I think there don't even exits some ingame.
After i see how sloppy/shallow programmed other systems are, i wouldn't wonder if the game only looks after brother/sister for one
generation and thats it.
I got a couple of snow leopards, their cup gets adult and mama and papa start to fight and got injuries -> complete bullpoo, why is such crap in the game?
Animals get adult and other animals get injured automatically, even without doing a fight-> see above
I don't think inbred is more than a "this is brother/sister" alert that means... well nothing if you don't care.
Real infertiliy.
The problem is, i don't think they are don't show us pedigrees.
I think there don't even exits some ingame.
After i see how sloppy/shallow programmed other systems are, i wouldn't wonder if the game only looks after brother/sister for one
generation and thats it.
I got a couple of snow leopards, their cup gets adult and mama and papa start to fight and got injuries -> complete bullpoo, why is such crap in the game?
Animals get adult and other animals get injured automatically, even without doing a fight-> see above
I don't think inbred is more than a "this is brother/sister" alert that means... well nothing if you don't care.