Topic

Animal Control

Seems like the ecosystem settings are a bit out of whack on some streets. Take Ix for example. 15 butterflies and 16 chickens on East Spice and 19 butterflies and 15 chickens on West Spice. Sometimes it's fine but I often have to reload pages with excessive animals.

I mean, honestly. Does any street need 19 butterflies?

Posted 17 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink

Replies

  • Maybe they could serve additional purposes, or "evolve." Or die.
    Posted 17 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Great timing on this post! Was just coming to forums to say something similar! 
    So much lag in West Spice, my Glitch looks like he's walking through treacle. 
    I don't have the fastest internet connection in the first place, but with a mob of butterflies, it's making it really hard to play in those few areas with spice trees...
    Posted 17 months ago by Ebil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Took me over 10 minutes (real life time) to get from one side of West Spice to the other! That's how badly the butterflies lagged up my computer. 
    Yes, I have a slow connection, but not that slow normally! 
    Posted 17 months ago by Ebil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • There was a time when streets that were heavy on butterflies could help in the last push to level-up: after drinking a Gurly Drink one could sing to butterflies to one's heart's content and earn XP while not using massive energy.  That's been "modified" now and no longer works, so overly-butterflied streets aren't desirable anymore. 
    EDIT: Last night, I found a butterfly sputtering on the ground about how sad it was, that the place was too crowded.  (It had not been rooked.)  It eventually got up and flew again, but there was no way to do anything to revive it, that I could see.  Maybe this is the start of ecological self-control by the creatures.
    Posted 17 months ago by Eleanor Rigby Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In theory, if a space is over crowded, animals will get sad for a bit and if they don't get happier, they migrate to an adjacent street. (If I understand correctly.)
    Posted 17 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Double post.
    Posted 17 months ago by Lord Bacon-o Subscriber! | Permalink
  • In theory, yes. This should be implemented in practice.

    Also in theory, rooks eat bugs such as buttlerflies. :P
    Posted 17 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  •  In theory there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice there is.
    Posted 17 months ago by Vicereine Linnæa Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Not when the practice is a fictional development. Then any theory goes out the window and practice becomes what the author decides theory is in this fictional world, if even that.
    Posted 17 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Then again, if you believe in Cartesian theory (e.g. "The Matrix"), then what we believe is the real world may also be a work of fiction and we cannot be certain that theory truly equates to practice because all we can be sure of is that we exist, lol.
    Posted 17 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • *brain explodes* o_o
    Posted 17 months ago by Ebil Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Forget all the cerebral speculations.  I want Repellant for all animals!  I want it NOW!
    Posted 17 months ago by Brib Annie Subscriber! | Permalink
  • +1 for the idea that too many animals on public streets is a nuisance. 

    I don't like having to wander around to find a street with only a few butterflies when I need to get some milk. Trying to milk butterflies when there are more than 5 or 6 of them is way too difficult. 
    Posted 17 months ago by Becky Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Brib, but how would the repellant work? If it just pushes animas to the other side of the screen, that doesn't resolve a lot of the issues, lol. I do like the idea of having a "quota" for how many of each animal can be in an area and that if other animals start to appear either they move to more open, less crowded areas, or if all nearby areas are just as full, they have a neat little action for "departing" from the world.

    Pigs should sprout wings and fly away. Chickens should head for the beach in sunglasses. And I still think Butterflies should be eaten by small Rook Jr.s. :P
    Posted 17 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink
  • If the street is overpopulation with animals, then it's not easy to massage then milk on the same batterfly. SQUAWK! SQUAWK! SQUAWK! are so annoyin', collecting a wheat is not fun anymore. *sighs* No longer fun game?
    Posted 17 months ago by Milolin Subscriber! | Permalink
  • "...all we can be sure of is that we exist..."
    To be fair, each individual consciousness can, at best, be sure that it exists.  You can't be sure that you haven't imagined everyone else or that they're not fictional in any number of other ways.  Isn't philosophy fun?

    On a more on topic note, I agree that public streets should have a lower threshold for animal populations.
    Posted 17 months ago by Magic Monkey Subscriber! | Permalink
  • Magic, yes, lol, I meant that is all we can be sure of, individually. I remember I once explained Cartesian theory to my mother and the look on her face when I said "I can't even be sure that you're real, or that you're even my mother, and you can't be sure that I'm real or even your son." Lmfao.
    Posted 17 months ago by Cerulean Subscriber! | Permalink