#baby animals
1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)
I have a feeling people would start blowing up baby animals
Marking them all as invalid targets would have the potential to mess up legitimate shots, I worry. Give shooting a juvenile a penalty, perhaps?
But people would still do it, and it’s really not hard to get money
It is assumed that when the hunting seasons open there are no longer baby animals, nor do I think that any hunter will shoot an animal that is carrying a baby.
And as we see in this thread, nobody wants animals that can't be shot.
https://discord.com/channels/393040947006406657/1212413391248040008
Unless we’re getting piglets… this is a big no no.
I mean, there are potentially players out there currently who purposely land shots that wound but don't quickly kill the virtual animals and the game doesn't do a ton to discourage that.
I think it's interesting that people are reacting strongly to this when the same logic used to advocate for adding endangered species could be used here: it's a game, so no real animals are being harmed.
Though Rexio also brings up a good point about the incongruity of animals aging in a world where it's perpetually hunting season (though that's further complicated by some maps not appearing to be set at hunting season).
The only reason why I'm against 'baby' animals is because they will have no trophy value. They'll be completely worthless, therefore pointless.
but you shot baby mosse¨so why not
Think about the realness though
I think itd be interesting to add baby animals as it coikd create new zones, such as nesting zones for birds etc
Also think it be interesting because if they ever add bigger animals like elephants they coukd be more likely to go aggressive when there is a yoinger one nearby