I didn't write it here because I thought it wasn't relevant and nothing more than just another 'text' to read. But now I see your understandable theory which I know well ... and I can refute it.
I've tested to build an observatory base at a nearly overpopulated spot which I know from an earlier game to depopulate. Therefore I brought everything with me and didn't touch anything(!) there (even driven carefully, hehe). Also part of this test was to come and to go more often, to stay, to swim around and to observe. And know what? It has no impact.
This raised my suspicion that every little change of the environment causes a chain reaction in a certain radius, what caused me not to plunder any more ... to 'leave' something from everything. The result seems to be less depopulation.
I didn't write it here because I thought it wasn't relevant and nothing more than just another 'text' to read. But now I see your understandable theory which I know well ... and I can refute it.
I've tested to build an observatory base at a nearly overpopulated spot which I know from an earlier game to depopulate. Therefore I brought everything with me and didn't touch anything(!) there (even driven carefully, hehe). Also part of this test was to come and to go more often, to stay, to swim around and to observe. And know what? It has no impact.
This raised my suspicion that every little change of the environment causes a chain reaction in a certain radius, what caused me not to plunder any more ... to 'leave' something from everything. The result seems to be less depopulation.
I'm not sure that I believe the ecosystem programming to be that intricate in this game. That said, I would not put it past the Devs to give bases a sort of "fear" value where the larger the base, the less wildlife wants to be near it. In my most recent save I was careful not to over harvest the wildlife in any way, pulling at most 1-2 mushrooms or coral from any single location and even then putting a lot of space between my base and where I got my resources, often swimming across the whole shallows biome to get some coral. I also made sure to start a fish farm right away to keep from eating the wild fish (I think I ate a total of five and took two peepers for breeding stock), and even with these precautions, which I admit are not as extreme as yours, but still ecologically conscious, I've got a dead zone for at least 100m radius (if not more like 250, but its hard to tell) all around my base. My base is rather large, however (see image), so perhaps that is the primary factor, the larger the base, the less wildlife around it.
I am curious, however, about the length of your experiment... Approximately how many hours of game time did you spend in and around the observation base? I know that I've spent a reasonable amount of time in and around my base as I have a personal rule against working outside at night, and as you can see I've spent a decent amount of time on construction, as well as hand digging the sand out of the sub pen, so I'd say I've spent at least 4-5 hours in total within or around the base.
Great observations to add to our collective, thanks @SpacedInvader for taking the time to post a screenshot - nice base you've got!
I believe the " deadzone effect" exists even for creative mode players so it's not something even the most careful and eco-friendly survivor will be able to avoid.
Like you, I was careful in my new experimental build save to not over fish the area I was building in. I built a food tank right away and existed only on that and did extensive breeding / release in the area - to no avail.
The problem as it exists, is not currently fixable. The system is still 'half-baked' as lxh put it. I do hope it's something the developers are thinking about and discussing in ways to fix the wildlife AI for future builds. The direction the game is heading lends itself to extensive long-term gameplay for one save-game so having no flora/fauna respawn is a problem in my opinion. No one wants to spend 25+ hours building up a fantastic underwater habitat complete with all the vehicles and machinery only to have the ocean around them become a barren wasteland. This isn't about the Aurora or radiation or over-fishing or any of the other possible explanations we've explored. It's simply part of the current Alpha coding.
If you are going to make a hardline rule that fish and plants are finite resources, you need to give the players other ways to compensate for 'depletion' of their environment - especially when that depletion is not of their own doing as we have discovered. The new fish-farm large aquariums and farming trays are definitely a step in the right direction but further methods to respawn fish and plants in the 'wild' should be considered as well.
*Edit: Again, I am hoping the 'egg' hatching system will be a possible way for fish to respawn in the wilds. Being able to replant corals and other flora directly into the reef beds would also be very positive.
Thanks for your thorough observations and posts Vexare. Worthy of real life ecological experimentation
It would be difficult to say it better. Cant agree enough with Vexare's conclussions (with the game's AI and ecology so far).
@Vexare I think calling the system half-baked is probably a little on the harsh side considering the game's pre-alpha state. A much better way to describe it would be unfinished, as I'm going to assume that the ecosystem coding will be going through many iterations between now and the game's official launch. With that in mind, I think it falls to us as the playtesters to give as much constructive feedback as possible on the ecosystem so we can to help guide the devs towards a long-term working system.
EDIT: Regarding the screenshot I posted, do any of you know how to use image linking rather than uploading? There appears to be a line for pasting a URL, but when I tried to use it, nothing happened...
Yeah, it seems like the system is simply not finished and non-fixable by the player. Some of the fish from the larger group I had observed seem to have despawned (or migrated?) and it seems a futile effort to try and repopulate whole biomes. I still release 10 fish or so every time I'm in the game to make the area around my base more lively, but most of them then disappear after a time. Repopulation of further biomes is something I haven't yet tried on that large a scale, but it might be worth a try. @Vexare, I'd love to be able to replant the creepvines - and hopefully have them grow into the impressive specimens seen in the Kelp Forests, and maybe even bear fruit again.
But for now, it seems the system is not able to be put into some equilibrium, we'll have to wait for mor development.
Even though we can not reach equilibrium right now, as it is, with the different ecosystems, I find the observations about the depleation/repopulation of biomes with the current state of the build very encouraging and clarifying on trends that I am sure we all noticed after more than 10 hours of gameplay. And, this thread has quickly reached the 1k+ views in a few days. Thats great! I am sure changes will be made, in time.
And I agree, as I mentioned on my frist post, I utterly love this game, and the purpose of the threads is to offer whatever constructive observations we can for the continuing development and growth of this inspiring game. Will be looking forward with excitment to its further development.
I really, really hope the dev teams gives us a word or two in time about our observations of these "ecological affairs". It would be really interesting to hear what they have to say about them and where have we pinpointed issues or erred on our observations (when possible, of course, I understand that there are development topics that can not be disscused).
@Vexare I think calling the system half-baked is probably a little on the harsh side considering the game's pre-alpha state. A much better way to describe it would be unfinished, as I'm going to assume that the ecosystem coding will be going through many iterations between now and the game's official launch. With that in mind, I think it falls to us as the playtesters to give as much constructive feedback as possible on the ecosystem so we can to help guide the devs towards a long-term working system.
EDIT: Regarding the screenshot I posted, do any of you know how to use image linking rather than uploading? There appears to be a line for pasting a URL, but when I tried to use it, nothing happened...
I was actually paraphrasing @lxh with the 'half-baked' remark and I don't think it was intended negatively though I do understand the saying can be attributed to someone or something that is crazy or not quite all there.
I guess I was referring to it as something that's not finished yet ... not done cooking ... incomplete. Which of course we all know is just the way it goes in the current state of the game as an Alpha / Early Access title. It's still miles above (or below the surface so-to-speak) other games in it's class for early development and I love it dearly so no offense was intended nor do I consider the game 'broken' in any way. My entire ecological concerns discussion from the first post to the last is done out of enthusiasm and enjoyment. I apologize if anyone thought otherwise. Certainly no rant aimed at the developers here and I hope they keep doing what they're doing with this great game!
I would agree too your post, Elicio, if there wasn't your bottom line. Meanwhile I've conceived the reason for our Devs' vow of silence. They do us a favor not to talk. And asking for declarations was like asking the scriptwriter to reveal all punchlines before watching the movie ... and wasn't - as you said - very encouraging any more. I think the Devs already react to our feedback but not in terms of forum posts. First little achievements in my repopulation program seem to confirm that.
This screenshot shows one of the spots where especially airsacks seem to stay and was taken several hours after releasing them.
Further investigations will possibly show up why.
The peepers in the foreground where recently released.
Well, we are searching, researching, asking ourselves ethical questions, we try, we fail, we suspect and speculate ..... but isn't it that all about? It would become boring if it was too easy.
@Vexare I'm sorry if I came across as overly sensitive, I've just already seen several people bashing the game for one reason or another (on the steam forums, not here, but still), and I get sort of frustrated when people refuse to understand that the game is in development and bashing it rather than giving constructive feedback does no one any good. That being said, your work on this topic so far goes well above what most people would do and I applaud that. I guess I was just trying to keep the phrasing positive.
@Vexare I'm sorry if I came across as overly sensitive, I've just already seen several people bashing the game for one reason or another (on the steam forums, not here, but still), and I get sort of frustrated when people refuse to understand that the game is in development and bashing it rather than giving constructive feedback does no one any good. That being said, your work on this topic so far goes well above what most people would do and I applaud that. I guess I was just trying to keep the phrasing positive.
Ah well there's your problem right there! Steam is overall a very negative place for real discussion. Invariably every post seems to devolve into some form of insulting and drama, sadly.
I brought the discussion here (after it went fairly well on Steam Discussion forum all things considered) because this is a much more productive and positive atmosphere for fun speculation posts and more involved testing.
Yea, yea, yea ... but please don't slipside off topic guys. I've spent too much time moderating a haunted forum and shoving out stuff like that not to know what's all that up to. Could you pleas PM that subject? This thread is long enough for people who are searching for informations.
On topic, it just occurred to me as I was merrily killing off biters in Grassy Plateaus that if we're going to be caring about the ecosystem, there should be some penalty associated with killing off all of the predators in an area. After all, a healthy predatory population is just as important to a healthy ecosystem as that of the non-predators (e.g. wolf population in Yellowstone). Perhaps if you kill too many predators in your escapades, you might return later to find that area overpopulated with fish and its flora disappearing.
it just occurred to me as I was merrily killing off biters in Grassy Plateaus that if were going to be caring about the ecosystem, there should be some penalty associated with killing off all of the predators in an area. After all, a healthy predatory population is just as important to a healthy ecosystem as that of the non-predators (e.g. wolf population in Yellowstone). Perhaps if you kill too many predators in your escapades, you might return later to find that area overpopulated with fish and its flora disappearing.
Mmmmm, a good point ... if there wasn't the mystery of disappearing resp. non breeding fish atm, and killing predators or not ... they vanish anyways. Once we've uncovered and eliminated the source of that malady, I think this could (and should) become the next issue. Wishing and trying to bring back predators, just to control the plague of too many fish. Hehe ..
Btw I couldn't find any stalker eggs yet. Would be very cool to breed, but therefore it'll take a big top hatch to release them. Or is there already? Didn't check it.
Hi everyone - in all honestly I only created an account to post my few thoughts about this fish not getting respawned issue. Now I'm not a marine biologist or anything else related in real life. I just enjoyed the game - beautiful, I mean gorgeous vistas, cute animals that can still give you that 'scared the crap out of me' moments, a sense of wonder and wanting to explore, find other places, etc. Just love it. Well, loved it.
Granted, I've only played a few hours. Not realizing that fish no longer respawn, I took my time, just had fun in those creepvine areas, edging myself towards the red grass areas, hunted for food when needed, crafted stuff, etc. Was just in the middle of building my first base when I realized that the only creatures around me were suddenly only some huge monstrosities close to Aurora, a few stalkers and um...me. I had run out of water (granted, that can be fixed) and food (that can only be fixed for a bit with vines, until you get to 10 health, then even that punishes you by bleeding).
So here I am now alone in the world, constantly dying because no food. And even if we ignore that horrible reality, I feel utterly alone - like in a post apocalyptic world devoid of any life. I no longer like it here. This is not the place I came to - at least I thought I came to.
I'm not yet far in the game. I've only created my first foundation and the room - was working on my first base. And I can't continue the game. Is it my fault that I idled around just searching for resources (that darn elusive silver, have plenty of useless gold though...) instead of pushing myself to finish everything so I can move to another biome fast? Probably. But right now I"m stuck, can't continue the game, so I will be checking back in the forum periodically in the hope that the fish respawn issue (for me an issue anyway) is no longer there. Because I'm dying within 1 minute of logging back to the game, so I literally can't continue said game...I can't play and honestly I don't want to start another game knowing that I have to rush through everything because #fishdying.
P.S. Before I came to the forum to check out about respawning, I thought it is a bug and sent an F8 message to the devs about it. I bet they're laughing their a**es off by my ignorant 'bug report' "help I keep dying, can't find any food, no fish around me, it's a bug.". Oh well.
well, I just cannot imagine how you've got a locker full of gold but no food. Frankly, rich gold sources are definitely not near your starting point and on your way there, you pass tons of food fish. Btw, there isn't any need to rush until you recognize dwindling fish populations. This takes hours while there's still more than enough, not to starve. If this post is meant to be serious and not to cause this thread to become longer, more confused and off topic, you might start a separate game in freedom mode first, just to get the idea.
But thanks for your input anyway.
Edit: @IronHorse .. could you please clean up a little?
@kislany: What lxh said is absolutely correct... There are actually plenty of edible fish in the starting and near starting zones to last for many hours (my first save was 24 hours and I could still find fish in both the shallows and the kelp forest my base bordered). The non-reproduction issue is more related to environment and a desire to have our gaming experience occur in a vibrant underwater ecosystem rather than a slowly dying one. The fact that you are running into Reapers and are not seeing any fish anymore means that you probably strayed into the crash zone biome (very much end game content right now) rather than sticking to the earlier zones, which isn't too hard if you go south from the shallows instead of west or north.
@lxh / @Vexare: I found this while poking around on the design Trello last night. Note the references to creature behavior, hunger, and reproduction. The do make clear in the comments section that any or all of the things on the list might be reintroduced into the game once core gameplay has been nailed down, but, absent of any comment by a Dev, we have no way to know if they have or will with those items at this point.
@lxh / @Vexare: I found this while poking around on the design Trello last night. Note the references to creature behavior, hunger, and reproduction. The do make clear in the comments section that any or all of the things on the list might be reintroduced into the game once core gameplay has been nailed down, but, absent of any comment by a Dev, we have no way to know if they have or will with those items at this point.
Thanks for that find on Trello. I'm not really familiar with how it all works over there though I do poke around and read cards from time to time. It's interesting to see how things are moved and discussed there.
I guess we should try to distinguish between three things we are discussing for viable game functions:
1. Fish respawn as a coded mechanic - invisible coding to replenish fish in dead areas over time when depleted. (I think this is core gameplay they don't want to do for... reasons?)
2. Fish respawn as a player driven feature - Breeding and release of fish and how they can be encouraged to 'populate' and live in set areas designated by the player.
3. Fish respawn as an ecological gameplay function - More complex system of migration and/or egg spawning - influenced or not by player action.
**These ideas shouldn't be confused with fish for food necessity as to avoid the argument from developers that respawning fish will discourage player exploration as a constant easy food supply would remain in shallows. I still disagree with this reason because the nature of the game and crafting/building encourages plenty of exploration far above and beyond food consumption and survival.
**These ideas shouldn't be confused with fish for food necessity as to avoid the argument from developers that respawning fish will discourage player exploration as a constant easy food supply would remain in shallows. I still disagree with this reason because the nature of the game and crafting/building encourages plenty of exploration far above and beyond food consumption and survival.
The thing that keeps sticking in my mind about that statement is that they have since introduced gameplay mechanics which could, if a player so desired, eliminate the need to leave the base entirely. A two story large aquarium and some water purifiers mean that, once built, a player could stand there staring at the wall ad infinitum and have all of their survival needs met. So its a big disconnect that these exist in the game (and they SHOULD... Devs, please don't nerf them out of usefulness), yet an argument is being made that respawning fish would discourage exploration.
That said, it could easily be the case that the decision has already been made internally to make the fish respawn, or even up the complexity of the ecosystem to include breeding, predator / prey, and species personality traits, and we just don't know it yet. I guess we can only hope that a Dev or at least someone with some concrete information will stop by and give us something more than pure speculation and hearsay to work with.
Our little problem might have different speculative reasons but definitely one effect. Before that I was through, done and bored within two hours. And now?
Besides that, the experimental version is changing faster and more often than we can chat or delimit facts. This circumstance might be the reason why some of my screwy assessments of breeding and repopulating seem to grip and appears as much deeper and tricky than it really was or ever meant to be. I really thought fish could need some quartz in their surrounding to orientate at night f.e. .. or the second generation or inbreeding theory.
Well, I'm afraid, once finished, it will be far far far too easy and transparent for people like us. Anyway ... you might agree that our 'little problem' makes the game. Enjoy it
**These ideas shouldn't be confused with fish for food necessity as to avoid the argument from developers that respawning fish will discourage player exploration as a constant easy food supply would remain in shallows. I still disagree with this reason because the nature of the game and crafting/building encourages plenty of exploration far above and beyond food consumption and survival.
The thing that keeps sticking in my mind about that statement is that they have since introduced gameplay mechanics which could, if a player so desired, eliminate the need to leave the base entirely. A two story large aquarium and some water purifiers mean that, once built, a player could stand there staring at the wall ad infinitum and have all of their survival needs met. So its a big disconnect that these exist in the game (and they SHOULD... Devs, please don't nerf them out of usefulness), yet an argument is being made that respawning fish would discourage exploration.
That said, it could easily be the case that the decision has already been made internally to make the fish respawn, or even up the complexity of the ecosystem to include breeding, predator / prey, and species personality traits, and we just don't know it yet. I guess we can only hope that a Dev or at least someone with some concrete information will stop by and give us something more than pure speculation and hearsay to work with.
Absolutely!
There's really no valid argument here with the new large aquarium system being introduced and currently in experimental build. Even without the water purifier (which for a new player will require exploration and delving into a wreck to find) one could arguably stock enough airsacks in aquariums to make infinite supplies of small water bottles so if this behavior is not desired - they are going about it in a strange way by actually encouraging more self-sufficient base building mechanisms. I have to suspect the statement I quoted from Obraxis on the Steam forums is not the final word or complete explanation for this current state of affairs in the game.
Not much else to report here - I played only a little this week after exhausting just about about every upgrade / blueprint available for my goals in experimental as well as completing my artificial lagoon with the terraformer. I had great fun and can't wait to see what else the developers bring into the game next. The ecosystem concerns I have are confirmed by many independent observers and I appreciate all those who took part in our long discussion here on the matter. A dead lifeless reef is not what players want and we now know it's not caused exclusively by player action or 'overeating' behaviors. Solutions for long-term game saves and repopulating a dead biome where the player has built their habitat are needed and hopefully to come.
Well, Vexare, at this point I'm still not convinced. Not by overfishing, sure, but what if certain fish like peepers really need all the quartz not to become disorientated and to disappear over night? The same with other specimen and other 'resources' .. they might need the low electric field caused by different metals within saltwater to feel home. Who knows? Crazy enough to work! We mustn't forget this is an alien world and we do .. know .. nothing.
Btw, my don't-touch-anything-experiment at the little observation base is still running (since many many hours now) and sustains this theory. So, if picking up something and changing the milieu really matters, the player IS the perpetrator ... if he eats or not. Can you follow?
PS: Off course this was an image and a 'role' most players couldn't stand or simply wouldn't like to see. "What I ..? Nonono, this depopulation thing is certainly not my fault, I'm a vegetarian." LOL
Anyway, if that was true, it would additionally explain why we can not repopulate by snipping one's fingers.
@lxh Though I wouldn't put it out of the realm of possibility that a player's interactions with the environment will have an impact on the ecosystem (negative or positive), I don't think the Devs will take it so far as to make quartz a required component for some fish to thrive. That would necessitate the inclusion of some way to correct an over harvesting early in the game and I don't see resource nodes becoming craftable or regenerating. Flora, on the other hand, would be much more logical components of an ecosystem, and I could easily see over harvesting of coral or mushrooms to be detrimental to an area. Mushrooms will probably be farmable, but coral takes years to grow, so I'd be surprised if they let you grow your own in a few day / night cycles, though I could be wrong.
In the end, I doubt will end up with a highly complex ecosystem to tend as this isn't an underwater farming simulator, but rather a survival and exploration game. Instead, I'm guessing that if they do anything, they will give us a reasonably complex system where the ecosystem interacts with itself and our actions impact it, but is still fairly stable and won't tumble like a house of cards if you harvest one too many mushrooms.
Well, SpacedInvader, I'm absolutely with you in terms of flora and traceability. But this is just something we'd like(!) to see. I'm talking about what's possible(!) right now. Got me?
I do see what you mean, but where I'm coming from is that, considering that the ecology system is apparently pretty rudimentary right now, I doubt that quartz deposits play a part. Its not impossible, but I don't think its likely.
Right now, I'm conducting a somewhat similar experiment on my current save, though not including minerals. I'm only sourcing organic resources from far away from my base to see if that has any effect. I'm also spending more time paying attention to inter-species interaction to see what effects that might be having that I've missed in the past because I just swam / drove by them. One thing that's popped out at me right away is just how many bleeders there are chasing fish near the boundaries with the kelp forest and the shallows. I've seen one peeper with as many as 6 bleeders chasing him, which is not something you see with any other predator / prey interaction in the game. Considering that they will attack anything that comes near them, it may be a major contributing factor that there are just too many bleeders and they are way too aggressive.
I've also got a full "biome revivification" project going wherein I've got 6 large tanks, each with a different species of local fish (kelp / shallows zones) and I plan on releasing 5 per day on a rotating cycle if/after I've started to notice the dead zone effect. This will help me decide once and for all if I can actually have a positive influence on the fish population in the area after they have started to disappear.
I cannot pass all the fish without totally crashing my seamoth.
Just kiddn you guys .. hehe
This is the spot where all my obviously 'stupid inbreed' fish are gathering ... coincidentally near my main base/breeding facility. But after a while they vanish anyway.
Very interesting is the fact, that not all fish are born 'homeless'. Some are settling where they've been released but most of them don't make it very long.
Atm, I'm trying to get rid of all my incest breedings to get empty aquariums and to check out the most resistant and adapted specimen to breed them again. This may take a while ...
A second and much smaller breeding facility at a different biome works well and seems to confirm my incest theory on a manageable level.
Apparently evolution must be taken by the hand there. But that's another story and another experiment(al version) Hehe
Speaking of predators, I think there may be an exclusion zone around a base that they can't enter. I built my most recent base in the north shallows next to the thermal vent which is also right next to an area of kelp forest. For most of the save, there was a stalker hanging out within 50m of the base, often chasing me to the door if I motored by him too closely on my way to or from the base. He was just fine throughout most of my base building, but when I built my first moon pool, which stuck out of my base in his general direction, suddenly he disappeared and has not been back since. Though I don't have much confirmation, it would seem that as they base expands predators at least are pushed out from their spawn points. I'm starting to wonder if this also doesn't carry over to fish to a lesser degree.
Hmmm, this is possible. But I've observed another occurrence. I've had a cozy gasopod near my growing base what didn't seem to trouble it. Yeah, I gave it a name and even built an observatory module ... just for her! *g What shall I say, it was a real good time ... hehe. But one beautiful morning she was gone. Hihi
Comments
I didn't write it here because I thought it wasn't relevant and nothing more than just another 'text' to read. But now I see your understandable theory which I know well ... and I can refute it.
I've tested to build an observatory base at a nearly overpopulated spot which I know from an earlier game to depopulate. Therefore I brought everything with me and didn't touch anything(!) there (even driven carefully, hehe). Also part of this test was to come and to go more often, to stay, to swim around and to observe. And know what? It has no impact.
This raised my suspicion that every little change of the environment causes a chain reaction in a certain radius, what caused me not to plunder any more ... to 'leave' something from everything. The result seems to be less depopulation.
I'm not sure that I believe the ecosystem programming to be that intricate in this game. That said, I would not put it past the Devs to give bases a sort of "fear" value where the larger the base, the less wildlife wants to be near it. In my most recent save I was careful not to over harvest the wildlife in any way, pulling at most 1-2 mushrooms or coral from any single location and even then putting a lot of space between my base and where I got my resources, often swimming across the whole shallows biome to get some coral. I also made sure to start a fish farm right away to keep from eating the wild fish (I think I ate a total of five and took two peepers for breeding stock), and even with these precautions, which I admit are not as extreme as yours, but still ecologically conscious, I've got a dead zone for at least 100m radius (if not more like 250, but its hard to tell) all around my base. My base is rather large, however (see image), so perhaps that is the primary factor, the larger the base, the less wildlife around it.
I am curious, however, about the length of your experiment... Approximately how many hours of game time did you spend in and around the observation base? I know that I've spent a reasonable amount of time in and around my base as I have a personal rule against working outside at night, and as you can see I've spent a decent amount of time on construction, as well as hand digging the sand out of the sub pen, so I'd say I've spent at least 4-5 hours in total within or around the base.
I believe the " deadzone effect" exists even for creative mode players so it's not something even the most careful and eco-friendly survivor will be able to avoid.
Like you, I was careful in my new experimental build save to not over fish the area I was building in. I built a food tank right away and existed only on that and did extensive breeding / release in the area - to no avail.
The problem as it exists, is not currently fixable. The system is still 'half-baked' as lxh put it. I do hope it's something the developers are thinking about and discussing in ways to fix the wildlife AI for future builds. The direction the game is heading lends itself to extensive long-term gameplay for one save-game so having no flora/fauna respawn is a problem in my opinion. No one wants to spend 25+ hours building up a fantastic underwater habitat complete with all the vehicles and machinery only to have the ocean around them become a barren wasteland. This isn't about the Aurora or radiation or over-fishing or any of the other possible explanations we've explored. It's simply part of the current Alpha coding.
If you are going to make a hardline rule that fish and plants are finite resources, you need to give the players other ways to compensate for 'depletion' of their environment - especially when that depletion is not of their own doing as we have discovered. The new fish-farm large aquariums and farming trays are definitely a step in the right direction but further methods to respawn fish and plants in the 'wild' should be considered as well.
*Edit: Again, I am hoping the 'egg' hatching system will be a possible way for fish to respawn in the wilds. Being able to replant corals and other flora directly into the reef beds would also be very positive.
It would be difficult to say it better. Cant agree enough with Vexare's conclussions (with the game's AI and ecology so far).
P.S. Thats a really awsome base SpaceInvader!
EDIT: Regarding the screenshot I posted, do any of you know how to use image linking rather than uploading? There appears to be a line for pasting a URL, but when I tried to use it, nothing happened...
But for now, it seems the system is not able to be put into some equilibrium, we'll have to wait for mor development.
And I agree, as I mentioned on my frist post, I utterly love this game, and the purpose of the threads is to offer whatever constructive observations we can for the continuing development and growth of this inspiring game. Will be looking forward with excitment to its further development.
I really, really hope the dev teams gives us a word or two in time about our observations of these "ecological affairs". It would be really interesting to hear what they have to say about them and where have we pinpointed issues or erred on our observations (when possible, of course, I understand that there are development topics that can not be disscused).
I was actually paraphrasing @lxh with the 'half-baked' remark and I don't think it was intended negatively though I do understand the saying can be attributed to someone or something that is crazy or not quite all there.
I guess I was referring to it as something that's not finished yet ... not done cooking ... incomplete. Which of course we all know is just the way it goes in the current state of the game as an Alpha / Early Access title. It's still miles above (or below the surface so-to-speak) other games in it's class for early development and I love it dearly so no offense was intended nor do I consider the game 'broken' in any way. My entire ecological concerns discussion from the first post to the last is done out of enthusiasm and enjoyment. I apologize if anyone thought otherwise. Certainly no rant aimed at the developers here and I hope they keep doing what they're doing with this great game!
This screenshot shows one of the spots where especially airsacks seem to stay and was taken several hours after releasing them.
Further investigations will possibly show up why.
The peepers in the foreground where recently released.
Ah well there's your problem right there! Steam is overall a very negative place for real discussion. Invariably every post seems to devolve into some form of insulting and drama, sadly.
I brought the discussion here (after it went fairly well on Steam Discussion forum all things considered) because this is a much more productive and positive atmosphere for fun speculation posts and more involved testing.
On topic, it just occurred to me as I was merrily killing off biters in Grassy Plateaus that if we're going to be caring about the ecosystem, there should be some penalty associated with killing off all of the predators in an area. After all, a healthy predatory population is just as important to a healthy ecosystem as that of the non-predators (e.g. wolf population in Yellowstone). Perhaps if you kill too many predators in your escapades, you might return later to find that area overpopulated with fish and its flora disappearing.
Mmmmm, a good point ... if there wasn't the mystery of disappearing resp. non breeding fish atm, and killing predators or not ... they vanish anyways. Once we've uncovered and eliminated the source of that malady, I think this could (and should) become the next issue. Wishing and trying to bring back predators, just to control the plague of too many fish. Hehe ..
Btw I couldn't find any stalker eggs yet. Would be very cool to breed, but therefore it'll take a big top hatch to release them. Or is there already? Didn't check it.
Granted, I've only played a few hours. Not realizing that fish no longer respawn, I took my time, just had fun in those creepvine areas, edging myself towards the red grass areas, hunted for food when needed, crafted stuff, etc. Was just in the middle of building my first base when I realized that the only creatures around me were suddenly only some huge monstrosities close to Aurora, a few stalkers and um...me. I had run out of water (granted, that can be fixed) and food (that can only be fixed for a bit with vines, until you get to 10 health, then even that punishes you by bleeding).
So here I am now alone in the world, constantly dying because no food. And even if we ignore that horrible reality, I feel utterly alone - like in a post apocalyptic world devoid of any life. I no longer like it here. This is not the place I came to - at least I thought I came to.
I'm not yet far in the game. I've only created my first foundation and the room - was working on my first base. And I can't continue the game. Is it my fault that I idled around just searching for resources (that darn elusive silver, have plenty of useless gold though...) instead of pushing myself to finish everything so I can move to another biome fast? Probably. But right now I"m stuck, can't continue the game, so I will be checking back in the forum periodically in the hope that the fish respawn issue (for me an issue anyway) is no longer there. Because I'm dying within 1 minute of logging back to the game, so I literally can't continue said game...I can't play and honestly I don't want to start another game knowing that I have to rush through everything because #fishdying.
P.S. Before I came to the forum to check out about respawning, I thought it is a bug and sent an F8 message to the devs about it. I bet they're laughing their a**es off by my ignorant 'bug report' "help I keep dying, can't find any food, no fish around me, it's a bug.". Oh well.
well, I just cannot imagine how you've got a locker full of gold but no food. Frankly, rich gold sources are definitely not near your starting point and on your way there, you pass tons of food fish. Btw, there isn't any need to rush until you recognize dwindling fish populations. This takes hours while there's still more than enough, not to starve. If this post is meant to be serious and not to cause this thread to become longer, more confused and off topic, you might start a separate game in freedom mode first, just to get the idea.
But thanks for your input anyway.
Edit: @IronHorse .. could you please clean up a little?
@lxh / @Vexare: I found this while poking around on the design Trello last night. Note the references to creature behavior, hunger, and reproduction. The do make clear in the comments section that any or all of the things on the list might be reintroduced into the game once core gameplay has been nailed down, but, absent of any comment by a Dev, we have no way to know if they have or will with those items at this point.
Thanks for that find on Trello. I'm not really familiar with how it all works over there though I do poke around and read cards from time to time. It's interesting to see how things are moved and discussed there.
I guess we should try to distinguish between three things we are discussing for viable game functions:
1. Fish respawn as a coded mechanic - invisible coding to replenish fish in dead areas over time when depleted. (I think this is core gameplay they don't want to do for... reasons?)
2. Fish respawn as a player driven feature - Breeding and release of fish and how they can be encouraged to 'populate' and live in set areas designated by the player.
3. Fish respawn as an ecological gameplay function - More complex system of migration and/or egg spawning - influenced or not by player action.
**These ideas shouldn't be confused with fish for food necessity as to avoid the argument from developers that respawning fish will discourage player exploration as a constant easy food supply would remain in shallows. I still disagree with this reason because the nature of the game and crafting/building encourages plenty of exploration far above and beyond food consumption and survival.
The thing that keeps sticking in my mind about that statement is that they have since introduced gameplay mechanics which could, if a player so desired, eliminate the need to leave the base entirely. A two story large aquarium and some water purifiers mean that, once built, a player could stand there staring at the wall ad infinitum and have all of their survival needs met. So its a big disconnect that these exist in the game (and they SHOULD... Devs, please don't nerf them out of usefulness), yet an argument is being made that respawning fish would discourage exploration.
That said, it could easily be the case that the decision has already been made internally to make the fish respawn, or even up the complexity of the ecosystem to include breeding, predator / prey, and species personality traits, and we just don't know it yet. I guess we can only hope that a Dev or at least someone with some concrete information will stop by and give us something more than pure speculation and hearsay to work with.
Our little problem might have different speculative reasons but definitely one effect. Before that I was through, done and bored within two hours. And now?
Besides that, the experimental version is changing faster and more often than we can chat or delimit facts. This circumstance might be the reason why some of my screwy assessments of breeding and repopulating seem to grip and appears as much deeper and tricky than it really was or ever meant to be. I really thought fish could need some quartz in their surrounding to orientate at night f.e. .. or the second generation or inbreeding theory.
Well, I'm afraid, once finished, it will be far far far too easy and transparent for people like us. Anyway ... you might agree that our 'little problem' makes the game. Enjoy it
Absolutely!
There's really no valid argument here with the new large aquarium system being introduced and currently in experimental build. Even without the water purifier (which for a new player will require exploration and delving into a wreck to find) one could arguably stock enough airsacks in aquariums to make infinite supplies of small water bottles so if this behavior is not desired - they are going about it in a strange way by actually encouraging more self-sufficient base building mechanisms. I have to suspect the statement I quoted from Obraxis on the Steam forums is not the final word or complete explanation for this current state of affairs in the game.
Not much else to report here - I played only a little this week after exhausting just about about every upgrade / blueprint available for my goals in experimental as well as completing my artificial lagoon with the terraformer. I had great fun and can't wait to see what else the developers bring into the game next. The ecosystem concerns I have are confirmed by many independent observers and I appreciate all those who took part in our long discussion here on the matter. A dead lifeless reef is not what players want and we now know it's not caused exclusively by player action or 'overeating' behaviors. Solutions for long-term game saves and repopulating a dead biome where the player has built their habitat are needed and hopefully to come.
Well, Vexare, at this point I'm still not convinced. Not by overfishing, sure, but what if certain fish like peepers really need all the quartz not to become disorientated and to disappear over night? The same with other specimen and other 'resources' .. they might need the low electric field caused by different metals within saltwater to feel home. Who knows? Crazy enough to work! We mustn't forget this is an alien world and we do .. know .. nothing.
Btw, my don't-touch-anything-experiment at the little observation base is still running (since many many hours now) and sustains this theory. So, if picking up something and changing the milieu really matters, the player IS the perpetrator ... if he eats or not. Can you follow?
Anyway, if that was true, it would additionally explain why we can not repopulate by snipping one's fingers.
In the end, I doubt will end up with a highly complex ecosystem to tend as this isn't an underwater farming simulator, but rather a survival and exploration game. Instead, I'm guessing that if they do anything, they will give us a reasonably complex system where the ecosystem interacts with itself and our actions impact it, but is still fairly stable and won't tumble like a house of cards if you harvest one too many mushrooms.
Right now, I'm conducting a somewhat similar experiment on my current save, though not including minerals. I'm only sourcing organic resources from far away from my base to see if that has any effect. I'm also spending more time paying attention to inter-species interaction to see what effects that might be having that I've missed in the past because I just swam / drove by them. One thing that's popped out at me right away is just how many bleeders there are chasing fish near the boundaries with the kelp forest and the shallows. I've seen one peeper with as many as 6 bleeders chasing him, which is not something you see with any other predator / prey interaction in the game. Considering that they will attack anything that comes near them, it may be a major contributing factor that there are just too many bleeders and they are way too aggressive.
I've also got a full "biome revivification" project going wherein I've got 6 large tanks, each with a different species of local fish (kelp / shallows zones) and I plan on releasing 5 per day on a rotating cycle if/after I've started to notice the dead zone effect. This will help me decide once and for all if I can actually have a positive influence on the fish population in the area after they have started to disappear.
I cannot pass all the fish without totally crashing my seamoth.
Just kiddn you guys .. hehe
This is the spot where all my obviously 'stupid inbreed' fish are gathering ... coincidentally near my main base/breeding facility. But after a while they vanish anyway.
Very interesting is the fact, that not all fish are born 'homeless'. Some are settling where they've been released but most of them don't make it very long.
Atm, I'm trying to get rid of all my incest breedings to get empty aquariums and to check out the most resistant and adapted specimen to breed them again. This may take a while ...
A second and much smaller breeding facility at a different biome works well and seems to confirm my incest theory on a manageable level.
Apparently evolution must be taken by the hand there. But that's another story and another experiment(al version) Hehe