The coordinates of my little observatory is at -646, -209, -717 within the spare reef. It's nothing more than a X-corridor, hatch, observatory, bench, fabricator, lockers and two solar panels. That, the arrival and departure by seamoth plus my modest on and off presence didn't affect anything there for at least 20 hours.
I've started plundering the near area around. The first thing I recognized real soon was the absence of the spadefish pair, that lived ~10 meters away from my base. Sometimes there was a little one too, so they've been three of but I have no proof of procreation. Now only the rarely seen little one is left, flitting around but the funny thing: It doesn't grow. That could mean it will not become adult and will not die.
The nearby reginalds seem not to be affected and the seven fish schools neither. Well, there are lots of other fish in a wider radius and I didn't spend hours there to observe all little changes. I nearly drowned by trying to count them ... and that on hardcore mode! But I can say, plundering the small area had definitely an effect.
Nevertheless I've got the impression of a big fake. It was logical that the shallows are affected because the game starts there and players are forced to plunder in this manner. But the consequence seems less caused by game dynamics than by a hard coded script event. Anyway ...
It will be very interesting what's coming next. I really hope a little more dynamically caused and comprehensible logic. But however, It's like Bob Marley once stated: You can fool some people sometimes but you can't fool all the people all the time.
I've finally read this thread from start to end (it "just" took me a few days to achieve it , but there is so much things to read and discover all around here on this forum !)
Surprising works and researchs, by the way !
I'm just playing Subnautica since a couple of weeks, so my feelings about its ecosystem could be very ... incomplete !
Let's start some questions :
1. I've got the impression that the starting biome, the Safe Shallows, performs a "better" lifecycle than the others (I mean that the prey-predator process seems more "dynamic" there than somewhere else : I noticed quite a few stalkers catching small fishes in the shallows, while the bonesharks (or even the reapers) seemed to me to be much more "lazy members" of the local food chain - except when I'm the prey ). Maybe this is an impression that only raised because I mainly progressed around the shallows (busy with my base building), jumping to other biomes just in search for ressources, or discovering ? Did you get this impression too ?
2. If this is relevant (the biomes don't perform a lifecycle the same way (or on the same speed), and the fish rate is not reducing everywhere at the same time), what could be the reason ? Is this happening according to the presence of the player (an occupied biome is more precisely calculated and simulated - logically saving precious cpu cycles on surrounding areas) ? Or is it only a yet-to-code issue (the devs focused mainly on the life processes of the starting area, expecting the players to stay in it for quite a while) ?
3. If so (the biome's progress is depending on the player proximity), could this mean that a player who avoid the Safe Shallows from the start and rush in a deep biome far away (building all the base and subs over there) will, getting back to the shallows times after, discover the area looking mainly like a brand new biome, as "fishy" as the start state, because the predation didn't really occured there (= not processed by the game) ?
@Piscator: Hi and welcome, I know its a beast of a thread at this point, so I'm surprised anyone is reading all the way through it at this point
To address your questions:
1. I have seen plenty of predator / prey interaction in mushroom and kelp forests with the stalkers, bone sharks, and bleeders, but you might be correct in that some predators (sand sharks and reapers seem to be guilty here) are pretty lazy, preferring to swim around aimlessly instead of actively hunt other fish (the player is another story here...).
2. As the system is currently programmed, if you are not in range of an area, it is not simulated at all. Therefore if you stay in an area like the mushroom forest for a while, you will see a lot of activity, but if you leave, absolutely nothing will happen until the next time your return.
3. It is actually the case that if you ignore the shallows biome from the beginning, only to visit it later for the first time, that it will be fresh as if nothing had happened there. A great way to test this out is to pay a visit to either the shallows biome that is off to the northwest, separated by an area of kelp forest, or the shallows biome near the Aurora (all the reapers on the near side of the ship leave after you've turned off the radiation), which are both far enough away from the starting area that they won't be simulated at all until you go there. You will find lots of fish swimming around, as if none had been killed at all by predators, even after many hours of gameplay.
I'm surprised anyone is reading all the way through it at this point
Ha, ha ! No credit for me : it took me several days to read the all thing (... and, I do admit, a lot, lot of coffee ! ). But I thought awesome the way you all tried and tested so different in-game situations, just to deeply understand its mechanisms ! Isn't this the right sense of "entering into the spirit of a game" ? (I hope to not commit too much misuses of language, my English has yet to be improved, ... just like my Subnautica experience)
By the way, I have to thank you for your detailed answers, they are much appreciated !
Therefore if you stay in an area like the mushroom forest for a while, you will see a lot of activity, but if you leave, absolutely nothing will happen until the next time your return.
So, if a player widely repopulate a biome, and leave it for a while just after, will the "terminated-simulation-because-the-player-is-away" process not erase the fish provided ? Or do the fish-coded coordinates you spoke about previously in this thread really keep these populations in game, reactivating them when the player comes back ?
if you ignore the shallows biome from the beginning, only to visit it later for the first time, it will be fresh as if nothing had happened there.
This means that its the player who "enable" the vanishing of the fishes (at least, in this state of the game), simply by crossing into a biome and making his home in it ?
Bad news, if so ... It feels like any player could become (not voluntarily) a powerful and merciless wildlife exterminator !
It feels like any player could become (not voluntarily) a powerful and merciless wildlife exterminator !
Hi Piscator!
To me it pretty looks like that, though we are still not the same opinion here. But is it really that inconceivable? We rush in as the personified high-tech cataclysm, igniting an atomic bomb and start plundering and changing the natural milieu in comparatively supersonic speed ...
And players still(!) think that shouldn't matter? *cough
Bravo to you @Piscator for making it through the entire long records of studies and discussions in this speculation thread - and not even in your native language too. That's a serious accomplishment.
I agreed with much of what you said and your questions definitely have validity to our ongoing discussion.
It feels like any player could become (not voluntarily) a powerful and merciless wildlife exterminator !
But is it really that inconceivable? We rush in as the personified high-tech cataclysm, igniting an atomic bomb and start plundering and changing the natural milieu in comparatively supersonic speed ...
I would absolutely love it if the real reason the shallows become barren is because of the Aurora's radiation impact and the survivor's disturbance in the area. A roleplay / story-line with consequences is great motivation beyond just sandbox exploration play.
To me and a couple of others though, it seems more like game engine mechanics at work. There's no way to 'see' an area you're *not* currently in - but the fact that if you left the shallows immediately, fixed the radiation and did not return to the shallows and the shallows would still be as populated as ever seems to indicate it's not story driven but game engine mechanics at this point.
The player's presence should not have a larger impact on the ecosystem than the Aurora's huge radiation leak - should it? That doesn't seem balanced.
We have established that it does not require you actually *eating* the fish either, just being in the area / biome does it.
By logical deduction, one can then presume this depletion of wildlife is happening because the biome is "turned on" and active due to player presence. Therefore any biome would suffer the same consequences with your continued presence whether you ate the fish or not, whether you built a base there or not.
Case in point for my testing - The thin kelp forest crevice next door to my shallows home base became barren and I never took food fish from it, never attacked the stalkers (or let them attack me) and never built a base there. The *only** thing I did in that biome was remove the silver nodes, some quartz and scrap metal pieces. Did my removal of those resources cause the fish to vanish? Why?
I still think it was merely me being active in the zone that did it... game engine mechanic causing the ecosystem balance to change. But essentially it is my 'presence' there.
This can be confirmed by starting a creative mode game and never taking a single node of ore, piece of scrap or fish. You will have the same results.
If the (eventual) story is leading the player to discover they and the Aurora are causing ecosystem damage and fish die-off, then I look forward to finding out if that damage can be reversed through player involvement above and beyond fixing the radiation leaks in the Aurora. We've tried to reverse the damage with extensive in-game player fish breeding testing. Special applause to @SpacedInvader for the most thorough studies on that! My own testing fell short in that I observed only those fishes wild caught and released or raised as immediate offspring in the large aquariums.
The game coded 'homing beacon' in the fishes was discovered - that was fascinating.
Yep Vexare, you fairly hit the point. 'Turning on' a biome by changing just a little and causing a chain reaction that depopulates the whole area might indeed be conceivable but - you know me, though I'm a hard one - it seems to go overboard. That's what I've named the big fake. But I see it as an early phase of this principle and would prefer to notice these effects more local. So the player has the chance to understand(!) what's going on ... and finally the chance to check out some principles of repopulation within these local phenomenons. Edit: ... and eventually adept his behavior to integrate correctly.
We rush in as the personified high-tech cataclysm, igniting an atomic bomb and start plundering and changing the natural milieu in comparatively supersonic speed ...
Sadly, this seems a truly wise observation ... and someone could extend it to the real life (rather frightening, now).
In the case of Subnautica, it's such a pity the way the game seems to currently deliver a kind of "death setence" to its own living world.
This is furtherfore frankly contradictory with the beauty and the wildlife wealth I immediatly felt while discovering the very first underwater places. I suppose that people who joined this experience were, like me, deeply (that's the word !) seduced and amazed by the living side of Subnautica.
No, this is just too bad. Subnautica can't be a "sweet but very soon vanishing cookie" (... is it ?).
(I'm fiercely searching the phone number of Charlie Cleveland, to beg him to do something to solve this issue ... hell, where did I put it ?)
Well, Piscator, I guess the Devs will give you the chance to smooth out all your sins. That's what I've meant with do all you can to deserve your paradise. I'm pretty sure if you'll act right and in the ecosystem's sense, you'll get your sweet cookie. Edit: ... plus - if you're clever - even your underwater panoramic view villa.
Just found this on the Trello Changes & Checkins (here) : "increased hoopfish spawns in kelp forest" and "fixed bug where released fish was swiming to its origin" (today, about 16:00 h GMT+1).
... Did Charlie Cleveland notice your thread !? (I'm joking ! ... or not ?)
Addendum to my plunder experiment: A bigger radius around my observatory is nearly totally depopulated now. That is the proof for me to say: All the sh*t is done by the player. Congreeeeedulations colegas. It seems we have to 'learn' this game
Aaaah .. sorry for the doublepost .. but they really did it. It's perfect! You can now take all your stupid fish out of your food locker and pose them like puppets for a photo shooting. *OMG* Fish breeding for everyone! That really makes me happy. One more 'bug' fixed! LOL
Yeah, and you can take any fish you like and place it where ever you like! They are perfectly stupid now! I'm so fascinated I nearly drowned!
Edit: Know what Devs, I think I really need a break from Subnautica at this point.
It would be fantastic to know if the diligent testing done by @SpacedInvader actually resulted in this fix!
I do believe that, in view of this thread's size, there is little no way for the devs to ignore this issue any more, and all the investment of you all ! Not sure there are other recent subject in this forum that "inflamed" more the players since quite some time (or am I wrong ?) ...
LOL lxh, I feel like you're getting a little cynical ... That said, I think its a good idea to take a break from games every once in a while. Especially when they are in development and a week or two break would actually have you returning to a very different game. I will have to work up the desire to conduct another depletion experiment where I actually save and live with the results for a while. I don't mind the effort of removing everything, but I don't really like the idea of purposefully leaving a dead zone (I try to live green after all). It would be quite interesting if the fish really did need certain resources present to stick in an area, though I still have strong doubts that its the case, and even if it is, I really doubt its quartz or limestone deposits.
@Vexare, while I agree that an event the size of the Aurora crash and explosion should have a larger impact on the game world, I've been on the fence about the whole radiation thing since the beginning. Water is actually one of the best shields against many kinds of radiation, which is why its used in storage pools for spent nuclear fuel rods and is proposed as a shield for long-duration manned space flight. 6 feet of water between you and the rods is apparently enough to neutralize a 5 minute lethal dose down to background levels. Now obviously, dark matter being equivalent to magic silly-putty in the game (we only theorize that it exists at this point, we haven't even proved it, let alone its physical characteristics), we can assume its capable of putting out some nasty particles which could penetrate right through water, but then having them disperse in such a small distance, even in air, is a disconnect as well. I'm not so picky that I'd hold a little detail like that against the Devs, however, as it makes for a good game mechanic and doesn't really detract from any part of the experience.
I can confirm, btw, that relocating fish also works now, as I was able to collect several peepers from the northwest shallows and then release them into the open water near the surface north of the shallows jelly shroom cave entrance. This definitely highlighted the need for fish spawning however, as within 30 seconds of release, they had 8 biters and 4 bleeders chasing them around, and within 2 minutes, they were all dead.
EDIT: Suggestion for the Devs: Expand the radiation zone to cover the whole map when not in water until the source is fixed. This would accomplish several things, the first of which is to really drive home the underwater nature of the game. Second would be to increase the difficulty of surviving by forcing the player to spend as little time as possible above the waves until they've shut down the radiation. And last, but IMO, not least, it would simulate the differing protections that air and water provide against high energy particle radiation.
EDIT: Suggestion for the Devs: Expand the radiation zone to cover the whole map when not in water until the source is fixed. This would accomplish several things, the first of which is to really drive home the underwater nature of the game. Second would be to increase the difficulty of surviving by forcing the player to spend as little time as possible above the waves until they've shut down the radiation. And last, but IMO, not least, it would simulate the differing protections that air and water provide against high energy particle radiation.
this actually seems like an interesting idea that could work for story purpose.
also @SpacedInvader and @Piscator
the only lazy predators right now is the sandshark since the reaper does actually hunt reefbacks when they encounter one
actually thinking about it do the crabsnake and the shocker hunt for prey or are they lazy as well, gonna research that quickly.
so I found out that snake crabs don't actually eat anything either and that shockers do hunt their food.
Also bone sharks turn out to be the slowest eaters with 3 to 5 minutes between each meal while stalkers eat a meal every 15 to 30 seconds which is probably the the main reason that our ecosystems are dying.
also sandsharks are supposed to hunt eyeye's but don't actually do so and are also supposed to hunt herbivores that are around 2 times their size which right now can only be the gasopod but i have no proof of that last statement.
also Reapers turn out to have no-collide on their entire body which makes them able to swim through terrain.
if anybody wants some more info on the bigger creatures I am here to answer your questions.
also Reapers turn out to have no-collide on their entire body which makes them able to swim through terrain.
I seriously hope the dev's are aware of that and are planning on fixing that. I've lost a seamoth to that "bug" during my first encounter with a reaper. Scared me so much I jumped out it and while the reaper was distracted I ran. Thing proceeded to drag the thing into the terrain making it impossible to find.
@lorcogoth & @Requiemfang, this is definitely a known issue which is being worked on. Reapers have always been pretty buggy for some reason, but at least now they don't reach up through the beach and suck you down like tremors...
Also, @lorcogoth, where do reapers and reefbacks come in contact without spawning one near the other? Current pathing seems to have both swimming in relatively small areas and I've yet to find a "natural" spawn for them that is anywhere near the other. If you're referring to the youtube video, I think that was set up...
Current pathing seems to have both swimming in relatively small areas and I've yet to find a "natural" spawn for them that is anywhere near the other.
Indeed, I don't remember ever seen a reaper straightly attack a reefback until now. I've been back checking this myself on several sites but, as @SpacesInvader noticed it, each "big guys" constantly seemed to stay pretty away one from the other, lurking into a rather limited space
@lorcogoth --> did you really witnessed such a predation (reaper <> reefback, or another creature) previously in your game ?
I think I read some times ago an information about reapers being able to hunt reefbacks in a future update, but not sure anymore. Until then, I'm afraid reapers are going to keep their "player-only killer " status for quite a while...
@SpacedInvader and @Piscator
it is true that there is almost no place where this happens I only know of one place and even then it is very rare but I did try it with spawning and the reapers do hunt the reefbacks.
maybe later in development reaper might go around and hunt reefbacks more actively.
the area I am referring to where it might happen is on the edge of the finished map and its with a big pit/cave where there are 2 reapers guarding it.
its vaguely around the -966;-102;27 coordinates there is a reaper to your right and a reefback to the left and very rarely they get close although this might have been because the reaper was chasing me at the time.
also after seeing how little reapers care about the sea floor (they don't even glitch throught they just keep swimming and behaving normal) I think that they may have no collide on purpose to keep player out of areas that are under construction.
@SpacedInvader and @Piscator
it is true that there is almost no place where this happens I only know of one place and even then it is very rare but I did try it with spawning and the reapers do hunt the reefbacks.
maybe later in development reaper might go around and hunt reefbacks more actively.
the area I am referring to where it might happen is on the edge of the finished map and its with a big pit/cave where there are 2 reapers guarding it.
its vaguely around the -966;-102;27 coordinates there is a reaper to your right and a reefback to the left and very rarely they get close although this might have been because the reaper was chasing me at the time.
also after seeing how little reapers care about the sea floor (they don't even glitch throught they just keep swimming and behaving normal) I think that they may have no collide on purpose to keep player out of areas that are under construction.
I know that spot, though I've never seen the reapers and reefbacks interact because its in the radiation zone and I rarely do anything in that zone before turning off the radiation, which also removes the reapers on the near side of the ship. That said, I doubt collisions are off on purpose as there are lots of unfinished zones without reapers nearby and all you need to get past them without trouble is a cyclops.
What I would really like to know, but I don't think its possible to discern:
When all the fish leave an area e.g. around my main base, to they die, or go somewhere else? If they die, how do they die? Do they get eaten by predators (Bloodsuckers seem to especally nasty) or do they die of poisoning?
@Dinkelsen, I don't think there is actually a migration mechanic in place (yet?), instead, I am pretty sure disappearing fish is primarily a predation thing, with a lesser component being the result of the player placing base structures within a certain radius of a fish spawn point. We've all seen the former happening, but the latter I'm basing off of observations of fish spawns, including predators, disappearing only after I've built a base on or near them.
@Dinkelsen its probably the stalkers i did some research and the stalkers seem to eat way more then the other predators.
something like a fish every 15 to 30 seconds while most predators only eat once every 2 minutes
Comments
Yeah, that was a 50m radius and it took an hour and a half. I was actually amazed by the amount of stuff in just such a small area.
The coordinates of my little observatory is at -646, -209, -717 within the spare reef. It's nothing more than a X-corridor, hatch, observatory, bench, fabricator, lockers and two solar panels. That, the arrival and departure by seamoth plus my modest on and off presence didn't affect anything there for at least 20 hours.
I've started plundering the near area around. The first thing I recognized real soon was the absence of the spadefish pair, that lived ~10 meters away from my base. Sometimes there was a little one too, so they've been three of but I have no proof of procreation. Now only the rarely seen little one is left, flitting around but the funny thing: It doesn't grow. That could mean it will not become adult and will not die.
The nearby reginalds seem not to be affected and the seven fish schools neither. Well, there are lots of other fish in a wider radius and I didn't spend hours there to observe all little changes. I nearly drowned by trying to count them ... and that on hardcore mode! But I can say, plundering the small area had definitely an effect.
Nevertheless I've got the impression of a big fake. It was logical that the shallows are affected because the game starts there and players are forced to plunder in this manner. But the consequence seems less caused by game dynamics than by a hard coded script event. Anyway ...
It will be very interesting what's coming next. I really hope a little more dynamically caused and comprehensible logic. But however, It's like Bob Marley once stated: You can fool some people sometimes but you can't fool all the people all the time.
Surprising works and researchs, by the way !
I'm just playing Subnautica since a couple of weeks, so my feelings about its ecosystem could be very ... incomplete !
Let's start some questions :
1. I've got the impression that the starting biome, the Safe Shallows, performs a "better" lifecycle than the others (I mean that the prey-predator process seems more "dynamic" there than somewhere else : I noticed quite a few stalkers catching small fishes in the shallows, while the bonesharks (or even the reapers) seemed to me to be much more "lazy members" of the local food chain - except when I'm the prey
2. If this is relevant (the biomes don't perform a lifecycle the same way (or on the same speed), and the fish rate is not reducing everywhere at the same time), what could be the reason ? Is this happening according to the presence of the player (an occupied biome is more precisely calculated and simulated - logically saving precious cpu cycles on surrounding areas) ? Or is it only a yet-to-code issue (the devs focused mainly on the life processes of the starting area, expecting the players to stay in it for quite a while) ?
3. If so (the biome's progress is depending on the player proximity), could this mean that a player who avoid the Safe Shallows from the start and rush in a deep biome far away (building all the base and subs over there) will, getting back to the shallows times after, discover the area looking mainly like a brand new biome, as "fishy" as the start state, because the predation didn't really occured there (= not processed by the game) ?
Thank you for reading me this far !
To address your questions:
1. I have seen plenty of predator / prey interaction in mushroom and kelp forests with the stalkers, bone sharks, and bleeders, but you might be correct in that some predators (sand sharks and reapers seem to be guilty here) are pretty lazy, preferring to swim around aimlessly instead of actively hunt other fish (the player is another story here...).
2. As the system is currently programmed, if you are not in range of an area, it is not simulated at all. Therefore if you stay in an area like the mushroom forest for a while, you will see a lot of activity, but if you leave, absolutely nothing will happen until the next time your return.
3. It is actually the case that if you ignore the shallows biome from the beginning, only to visit it later for the first time, that it will be fresh as if nothing had happened there. A great way to test this out is to pay a visit to either the shallows biome that is off to the northwest, separated by an area of kelp forest, or the shallows biome near the Aurora (all the reapers on the near side of the ship leave after you've turned off the radiation), which are both far enough away from the starting area that they won't be simulated at all until you go there. You will find lots of fish swimming around, as if none had been killed at all by predators, even after many hours of gameplay.
Ha, ha ! No credit for me : it took me several days to read the all thing (... and, I do admit, a lot, lot of coffee !
By the way, I have to thank you for your detailed answers, they are much appreciated !
So, if a player widely repopulate a biome, and leave it for a while just after, will the "terminated-simulation-because-the-player-is-away" process not erase the fish provided ? Or do the fish-coded coordinates you spoke about previously in this thread really keep these populations in game, reactivating them when the player comes back ?
This means that its the player who "enable" the vanishing of the fishes (at least, in this state of the game), simply by crossing into a biome and making his home in it ?
Bad news, if so ...
Hi Piscator!
To me it pretty looks like that, though we are still not the same opinion here. But is it really that inconceivable? We rush in as the personified high-tech cataclysm, igniting an atomic bomb and start plundering and changing the natural milieu in comparatively supersonic speed ...
And players still(!) think that shouldn't matter? *cough
Good morning! Time to wake up guys!
I agreed with much of what you said and your questions definitely have validity to our ongoing discussion.
I would absolutely love it if the real reason the shallows become barren is because of the Aurora's radiation impact and the survivor's disturbance in the area. A roleplay / story-line with consequences is great motivation beyond just sandbox exploration play.
To me and a couple of others though, it seems more like game engine mechanics at work. There's no way to 'see' an area you're *not* currently in - but the fact that if you left the shallows immediately, fixed the radiation and did not return to the shallows and the shallows would still be as populated as ever seems to indicate it's not story driven but game engine mechanics at this point.
The player's presence should not have a larger impact on the ecosystem than the Aurora's huge radiation leak - should it? That doesn't seem balanced.
We have established that it does not require you actually *eating* the fish either, just being in the area / biome does it.
By logical deduction, one can then presume this depletion of wildlife is happening because the biome is "turned on" and active due to player presence. Therefore any biome would suffer the same consequences with your continued presence whether you ate the fish or not, whether you built a base there or not.
Case in point for my testing - The thin kelp forest crevice next door to my shallows home base became barren and I never took food fish from it, never attacked the stalkers (or let them attack me) and never built a base there. The *only** thing I did in that biome was remove the silver nodes, some quartz and scrap metal pieces. Did my removal of those resources cause the fish to vanish? Why?
I still think it was merely me being active in the zone that did it... game engine mechanic causing the ecosystem balance to change. But essentially it is my 'presence' there.
This can be confirmed by starting a creative mode game and never taking a single node of ore, piece of scrap or fish. You will have the same results.
If the (eventual) story is leading the player to discover they and the Aurora are causing ecosystem damage and fish die-off, then I look forward to finding out if that damage can be reversed through player involvement above and beyond fixing the radiation leaks in the Aurora. We've tried to reverse the damage with extensive in-game player fish breeding testing. Special applause to @SpacedInvader for the most thorough studies on that! My own testing fell short in that I observed only those fishes wild caught and released or raised as immediate offspring in the large aquariums.
The game coded 'homing beacon' in the fishes was discovered - that was fascinating.
But there remains many unanswered questions.
Sadly, this seems a truly wise observation ... and someone could extend it to the real life (rather frightening, now).
In the case of Subnautica, it's such a pity the way the game seems to currently deliver a kind of "death setence" to its own living world.
This is furtherfore frankly contradictory with the beauty and the wildlife wealth I immediatly felt while discovering the very first underwater places. I suppose that people who joined this experience were, like me, deeply (that's the word !) seduced and amazed by the living side of Subnautica.
No, this is just too bad. Subnautica can't be a "sweet but very soon vanishing cookie" (... is it ?).
(I'm fiercely searching the phone number of Charlie Cleveland, to beg him to do something to solve this issue ... hell, where did I put it ?)
This game's got to be somehow ... methaphysical !
Just found this on the Trello Changes & Checkins (here) : "increased hoopfish spawns in kelp forest" and "fixed bug where released fish was swiming to its origin" (today, about 16:00 h GMT+1).
... Did Charlie Cleveland notice your thread !?
This could be awesomely great ! Something that truly make it up with the game's living mechanics !
Hmmm, let's see what that means. I guess the term 'origin' stands for our 'zero point'. Hopefully! I think a sense for home becomes our fishies.
It would be fantastic to know if the diligent testing done by @SpacedInvader actually resulted in this fix!
Edit/PS: 1:1 SpacedInvader. *)
Yeah, and you can take any fish you like and place it where ever you like! They are perfectly stupid now! I'm so fascinated I nearly drowned!
Edit: Know what Devs, I think I really need a break from Subnautica at this point.
LOL Subnautica is love... Subnautica is life...
Ha, ha ! Too funny ! Mind the step, lxh, otherwise you're gonna fall in love with a brand new peeper before figuring it out !
I do believe that, in view of this thread's size, there is little no way for the devs to ignore this issue any more, and all the investment of you all ! Not sure there are other recent subject in this forum that "inflamed" more the players since quite some time (or am I wrong ?) ...
@Vexare, while I agree that an event the size of the Aurora crash and explosion should have a larger impact on the game world, I've been on the fence about the whole radiation thing since the beginning. Water is actually one of the best shields against many kinds of radiation, which is why its used in storage pools for spent nuclear fuel rods and is proposed as a shield for long-duration manned space flight. 6 feet of water between you and the rods is apparently enough to neutralize a 5 minute lethal dose down to background levels. Now obviously, dark matter being equivalent to magic silly-putty in the game (we only theorize that it exists at this point, we haven't even proved it, let alone its physical characteristics), we can assume its capable of putting out some nasty particles which could penetrate right through water, but then having them disperse in such a small distance, even in air, is a disconnect as well. I'm not so picky that I'd hold a little detail like that against the Devs, however, as it makes for a good game mechanic and doesn't really detract from any part of the experience.
I can confirm, btw, that relocating fish also works now, as I was able to collect several peepers from the northwest shallows and then release them into the open water near the surface north of the shallows jelly shroom cave entrance. This definitely highlighted the need for fish spawning however, as within 30 seconds of release, they had 8 biters and 4 bleeders chasing them around, and within 2 minutes, they were all dead.
EDIT: Suggestion for the Devs: Expand the radiation zone to cover the whole map when not in water until the source is fixed. This would accomplish several things, the first of which is to really drive home the underwater nature of the game. Second would be to increase the difficulty of surviving by forcing the player to spend as little time as possible above the waves until they've shut down the radiation. And last, but IMO, not least, it would simulate the differing protections that air and water provide against high energy particle radiation.
this actually seems like an interesting idea that could work for story purpose.
also @SpacedInvader and @Piscator
the only lazy predators right now is the sandshark since the reaper does actually hunt reefbacks when they encounter one
actually thinking about it do the crabsnake and the shocker hunt for prey or are they lazy as well, gonna research that quickly.
Also bone sharks turn out to be the slowest eaters with 3 to 5 minutes between each meal while stalkers eat a meal every 15 to 30 seconds which is probably the the main reason that our ecosystems are dying.
also sandsharks are supposed to hunt eyeye's but don't actually do so and are also supposed to hunt herbivores that are around 2 times their size which right now can only be the gasopod but i have no proof of that last statement.
also Reapers turn out to have no-collide on their entire body which makes them able to swim through terrain.
if anybody wants some more info on the bigger creatures I am here to answer your questions.
How did you get those informations (personal observations, surfing anywhere, ...) ?
I seriously hope the dev's are aware of that and are planning on fixing that. I've lost a seamoth to that "bug" during my first encounter with a reaper. Scared me so much I jumped out it and while the reaper was distracted I ran. Thing proceeded to drag the thing into the terrain making it impossible to find.
Also, @lorcogoth, where do reapers and reefbacks come in contact without spawning one near the other? Current pathing seems to have both swimming in relatively small areas and I've yet to find a "natural" spawn for them that is anywhere near the other. If you're referring to the youtube video, I think that was set up...
Indeed, I don't remember ever seen a reaper straightly attack a reefback until now. I've been back checking this myself on several sites but, as @SpacesInvader noticed it, each "big guys" constantly seemed to stay pretty away one from the other, lurking into a rather limited space
@lorcogoth --> did you really witnessed such a predation (reaper <> reefback, or another creature) previously in your game ?
I think I read some times ago an information about reapers being able to hunt reefbacks in a future update, but not sure anymore. Until then, I'm afraid reapers are going to keep their "player-only killer " status for quite a while...
it is true that there is almost no place where this happens I only know of one place and even then it is very rare but I did try it with spawning and the reapers do hunt the reefbacks.
maybe later in development reaper might go around and hunt reefbacks more actively.
the area I am referring to where it might happen is on the edge of the finished map and its with a big pit/cave where there are 2 reapers guarding it.
its vaguely around the -966;-102;27 coordinates there is a reaper to your right and a reefback to the left and very rarely they get close although this might have been because the reaper was chasing me at the time.
also after seeing how little reapers care about the sea floor (they don't even glitch throught they just keep swimming and behaving normal) I think that they may have no collide on purpose to keep player out of areas that are under construction.
I know that spot, though I've never seen the reapers and reefbacks interact because its in the radiation zone and I rarely do anything in that zone before turning off the radiation, which also removes the reapers on the near side of the ship. That said, I doubt collisions are off on purpose as there are lots of unfinished zones without reapers nearby and all you need to get past them without trouble is a cyclops.
When all the fish leave an area e.g. around my main base, to they die, or go somewhere else? If they die, how do they die? Do they get eaten by predators (Bloodsuckers seem to especally nasty) or do they die of poisoning?
I would so love to get my hands on a logfile...
something like a fish every 15 to 30 seconds while most predators only eat once every 2 minutes