Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
- I think it's pretty safe to say that habitats do exist. Animals of the same species are often found within the same general area of the map, and these areas seem identical (or at least very similar) between different players and different platform.
- There is still a good deal of variation because the habitats are huge, and animal spawns within a habitat seem to be randomly distributed. A few days ago, Victoria made a post with a comparison of 3 game states that she's playing concurrently. In one, wolves totally owned a given area, in another there was a "good presence" of them, and in the third there were only 2 packs. So even though each game state has the same habitat assigned to that area, the gameplay experience when entering it can be very different.
- Without reverse-engineering the code, it would be very difficult to find out how need zones and animal spawns are placed and assigned exactly. I don't see a good way of testing one hypothesis against another, and there are many possible explanations. The game could first place need zones for each species, then spawn the animals around them. The game could place need zones without assigning them to species, and do that assignment once the animals are placed. Animals could have a fixed set of need zones that they visit, which usually stays the same and might only get disturbed if need zones get deleted or animals get hunted far away from their regular paths. Animals could also choose the next need zone on the fly when leaving the current one, possibly guided by parameters that make it more likely for them to seek out the same ones each time.
- I'm not sure if "animals not finding a new zone to go to" is a realistic proposition. Given that creating new hunting pressure makes old hunting pressure vanish, that you can only have ca. 10 zones of (undiminished) hunting pressure on the map, and that you need 4 overlapping zones of undiminished hunting pressure to remove need zones, it seems extremely unlikely that a habitat would be so small that the game cannot find a spot to place a new need zone within it, to which the animals could then migrate. For example, if the maximum number of concurrent undiminished hunting pressure zones is 10, then a habitat would only need room for 3 need zones whose distance from each other is farther than the reach of hunting pressure, in order to always find room for a new need zone.
There are two "levels" of habitat. First the overall distribution (where a species can be found on the map) which is then split up into several habitats that individual or groups of animals can be assigned to and will contain all of their need zones. That's an easy way to ensure the animals are distributed roughly evenly and don't have to travel from one end of the map to the other. I assume killed animals also do respawn in that same area for a similar reason, at least to a certain degree. One such habitat is still pretty big and will normally be the home of multiple groups of animals and similar to what Psyringe said, it doesn't seem likely that all of it could be covered in hunting pressure higher than level 3.5 with 10(?) hunting pressure circles being able to exist at the same time.
Need zone areas / potential need zones are determined manually by the devs and aren't species specific. They are also not circular like many of us assumed based on them being roughly similar in size to the hunting pressure circles. I once wondered if the blocky form and sometimes slight shift of the hunting pressure circles (compared to where an animal was shot) means the map is subdivided into a grid and that seems to be the case. So the need zone areas can have various shapes based on the blocks of that grid.
As far as I can tell, if a new animal is spawned into the game, it will be immediately assigned to a habitat and a set of need zones. That's a permanent connection until either the animal is killed or its need zone is deleted by hunting pressure (meaning its connection to that need zone area). In the latter case, a new need zone is assigned pretty much immediately.
I don't think any animal is roaming the map searching for need zones nor that animals can be "rehomed" or linked to a different need zone by player interaction. Sometimes animals can go into their need zone behavior far from their need zone, e.g. if chased or blocked otherwise, and that doesn't even require that any need zone of that kind is near it at the moment, but they are still linked to their original need zone. This quirk might be the reason for some people thinking they can influence which need zones an animal uses, but I've tested this repeatedly (to the degree the little concrete information on how one would go about achieving something like this offered allowed).
Hunting pressure has the side effect of showing us where an animal died, but its main function is to simulate, well, hunting pressure by deleting need zones. While we might assume that it affects animal behavior directly as well, I did several tests that seem to confirm that this is not the case (the setup for most of my tests are explained in older threads). Meaning, animals will not behave differently or avoid an area with even ridiculously high hunting pressure (if they have a reason to be there in the first place, i.e. none of their adjacent need zones were deleted).
Interesting. Would you say that hunting pressure has no effect on animal behavior at all, apart from an indirect one when a need zone gets deleted (and the animal then gets assigned a new one)?
Their assigned need zones are stored in this file, but only by GUID, not their location.
If fixed need zones are stored in the population data, then that means that some of the hypothesis I mentioned in post #2 can be ruled out. It would also make it possible to track reliably if animals can ever, under any circumstances, change need zones without their previous zone having been deleted - though monitoring that might be tedious.
Thanks for the info!
What I can do is relate what my experiences and observations are as I play, trying to be reasonable and logical as I do so. I'm not the type to simply assert a point of view off the top of my head for no other reason than stubbornly trying to be correct about it. Findus knows this because we've had many good and thorough discussion on the matter of our speculative understanding around spawning mechanics and potential correlations with Need Zones
So having said that, my only interest in this effort is sharing information that can possibly bring further understanding to this aspect of the game which the Devs have yet to be forthright about. And I understand the need for data as a part of the evidentiary process, but actual gameplay observation is also important as it is the substantiation of the data and whether or not the data is actually working properly. There is much data to be found in these conflicts that cause so many bugs in the game. Just because you can show data written in a file does not necessarily prove that it will unfold during gameplay the way it was intended. After all, that is the defining characteristic of a glitch.
Now, I also understand why Findus would like to delve into specific affirmation procedures, and why he suggests the potential factors of player bias as the reason for misguided observations. That is certainly crucial in any consideration of speculations.
However, as I've said many times, and given the above statement, I'm not here to toot my own horn louder than everyone else for the sake of winning some noise battle. If some valid information can be brought forward that helps to increase our understanding of the game and thereby make it more enjoyable I will certainly be immediately willing to accept it into my theorizing and adjust my tactics accordingly.
But such would have to fall into line with that which I'm experiencing. If data and assumption doesn't fit into that which I actually experience as I play the game than it would be foolish for me to believe in something that isn't actually happening, regardless of the data.
Furthermore, I don't have to see the data that is malfunctioning when a deer is upside down in a tree to assume/conclude that something is amiss.
So when Findus suggests that theorizing without data confirmation is self delusional biased thought processing, in my case, he is absolutely wrong. However it is his prerogative to ask for supporting evidence and further testing of theories. That is not unreasonable, I just don't have the desire to put in that effort just for the sake of proving what I know I am already observing myself over and over again.
If he wants to disprove something by applying his own testing I am always open and ready to consider. After all it is knowing the secrets behind the veil that is the goal here.
But to simply declare that you've done alot of testing, without providing undeniable evidence other than your own experience with the observations has no more creedence than someone else's speculative assumptions.
What I really don't understand is why you assume that the AI cannot rewrite/reprogram an animal's pathway in coordination with a player's activity in the game. If the pathway can be programmed initially by the AI at launching a new map, than why do you insist that reprogramming cannot be/is not being done during gameplay progression. You seem to be thinking with the same bias that you decry in others. And I don't mean that to be insulting or accusatory in any way. But with respect, Im trying to understand why you dismiss a potential process of ongoing recalculation when you know that is the very constant mechanic behind the AI management in the first place.
I highly doubt anyone else is going to read through this thoroughly Findus, but I hope it brings you to a better understanding of both where my intentions are grounded, and why I seem to be unwilling to dig into the hole beyond the bedrock.
With the focus on subjective perception that you are applying to your reasoning, you are - unfortunately - incapable of spotting an entire category of mistakes that you might be making. You're literally blindsiding yourself.
I'm sorry, but what you label as "absolutely wrong", is actually the very foundation of reliable reasoning.
You're absolutely free to "not put in the effort" - but then you also have to bear the consequences of that. Namely, that your speculation may not be taken as seriously as you want to, because due to you not sharing any data, there is no way for others to check or reproduce it.
As far as I can see, he didn't say that such a process is impossible. He said that he never found any evidence for it, and thus sees no reason to believe that it exists. But I would like to hear more about his exact method of testing as well, by the way.
But here's the thing: I can see in the data files that each group of animals has a fixed set of need zones assigned to it. I can check at any time whether these zones have changed for any particular group of animals. Now, given that information - what would I have to do, in your opinion, to make a given group choose a different set of need zones even though the old ones still exist? If that could be achieved, that would be a valid proof.
I did read through the entire post, but unfortunately, no, it didn't help to make your position more understandable at all. In fact, it seems to highlight how paradoxical it is. You are clearly knowledgable about the game, you are clearly capable of logical thought, and clearly have a desire to discuss your ideas (which are often quite interesting). But at the same time, you ignore the very basics of reasoning and insist that your own subjective perception is paramount to everything else, even though we all know for centuries that perception is inherently flawed for a number of reasons. It literally makes no sense.
1. Hunting pressure affecting animal behavior-
I can say without doubt that it does, as I clearly witness it every day. Why some players don't seem to observe the same confounds me because it is just so absolutely obvious. Maybe it involves different styles of playing the game. For example, someone that doesn't use lures or scent eliminator might not have the opportunity to observe the behaviors that are so obvious to players that do utilize those aspects of the game.
2. Spawning and AI Programming-
Many discussions are being had around this topic that cannot be verified because the Developer keeps the actual evidence hidden from public scrutiny.
So we are left to our own speculative processes and sharing our thinking and observing, hopefully as logically formed as possible.
We know there is some random factor involved, but there are many complex dynamics included as well. Simply suggesting that random process dismisses all the interconnectivity involved within such dynamic process is not an argument to deny every worthy speculation.
And there are many deeper questions that we can ask, such as in this OP.
Each of us will have various observations to put forth, and explaining them is not always easily done but it is by sharing these that we can improve our understanding of what is most often being experienced by the majority of the community. While simultaneously considering that some offerings will be misguided, biased or simply trolling for arguments.
Hense, it should always be approached with hesitation and some degree of compliance with that which we each actually experience in our own playing of the game.
In my experience, it is not illogical to assume the AI will rewrite a pathway according to interactivity of the player. After all, isn't that what the AI is constantly doing as it monitors and manages the outcomes of our imposition upon the theater of activity?
And from what I am regularly experiencing over thousands of hours is that the presence of Need Zones does correlate with an increase in particular species that we tag a specific zone. Not beyond the maximum population cap, but simply an increase in their specific presence in and around those tagged zones. Which would suggest a correlation to spawning being somehow affected. And if so pathways being redirected.
An assumptive observation not unsound given the AI is always adjusting for our interactions.
And, if this is the case, than assumptions that suggest new maps will be affected by tagging particular species to specific zones will improve upon what types of animals will be more readily found within player managed areas as a result.
I quite simply cannot be more forthcoming or through in my explanation than this. So take it for what it's worth, which in my case, is the totality of my game as i experience it.
My speculation, whether supported by data or not, is what I'm actually experiencing as I play, so how can that be dismissed simply by a lack of supporting data.
It seems like you're suggesting the same thing that Findus often does, which is that without data the observations are not admissible. When you know that data is often compiled through observation. And when you know that data can be corrupted, while personal experience cannot. It might be misconstrued, but if the same results are experienced overall than they should be as evidentiary, and even moreso, than potentially corrupted data.
Yes, perception is perspective and evidence can be advantageous, as long as it's quality is taken into consideration with the obvious, unless you want to enter into discussion about Einstein's 'spooky action'. Lol
Don't even go there Psy!!!!!
It all reduces to the micro where I'm not willing to put potentially corruptible and conflicting data files over and above my routine observations.
And I agree, I would also like to see what Findus might have to offer from credible testing, should he bother to take on such a challenge. Which makes me wonder the reason why you wouldn't do the same given you're obvious insistence on data substantiation.
As I've often told Findus, to his dismay, lol, I would rather base the mechanics on my testing process which is simply playing/enjoying the game and observing the results.
Well, there's a difference between perception and observation. For proper observation, you need to establish a procedure that prevents biases and cognitive mistakes from influencing the data, and this is how you produce objective data that can be used to arrive at new insights.
For example: Saying something like "I monitored the same herd approach the same drinking zone across a period of 12 days. Every 3 days, I shot an unrelated animal in the area to increase the hunting pressure. I stopped the time that the herd needed to fully arrive at the zone, and I observed that it took longer each time I increased the hunting pressure, here are the timings I got". That would be a valid method of observation - a way of obtaining objective data that others can try to reproduce, and that can be used to draw conclusions from.
On the other hand, saying something like "I've seen that herds take longer to arrive at drinking zones when there is hunting pressure, I'm sure of it, you can trust me" - that is just subjective perception. It might be interesting speculation, but in terms of gaining knowledge and arriving at reliable conclusions, it is almost worthless. The person could have misjudged the timings, could have fallen victim to confirmation bias, or could have checked an insufficient number of hunting pressure conditions that they then got mixed up because they didn't observe them in an organized way, or they might have seen different herds who behaved differently due to factors other than the hunting pressure, to name just a few potential issues.
Similarly, if you say: "Each time a shot a Fallow Deer, I checked whether it respawned near one of my discovered need zones or not. I tallied 12 reappearances near my need zones and 4 elsewhere." That would be a valid, useful observation. But if you're just saying "I never kept a tally, but I know from experience that killed animals have a higher chance of respawning near discovered need zones" - that is practically useless. You're a human, you simply cannot make that assessment reliably with the kind of brain we have. Our brain does not "store" memories in an objective way that would allow us to objectively analyze them afterwards, it _reconstructs_ them in a way that is influenced by our beliefs and expectations. Without some kind of protocol, you can share an impression, but if you're trying present it as a fact, you're on very thin ice.
Yes, data can be corrupted. Which is the reason why we _document_ the way how we arrived at the data, and the reason that (in science at least) we generally don't accept results until they have been reproduced by others. With regard to data, we have - over the centuries - established methods that enable us to detect potential data corruption and weed out data that was collected improperly.
But - and that's the thing that you somehow don't seem to see - subjective perception is _inherently_ corrupted. It is always subject to influences that we cannot control, due to the way how the human brain is operating. The human brain is built to see patterns, connections, and causality - even when they aren't there. Subjective perception is known, and has been proven countless times, to be extremely fallible and unreliable. It has been proven over and over that people who are well aware of cognitive biases will _still_ fall victim to them, the human brain simply seems incapable of preventing that. So why would you trust such an unreliable tool over one that provides well-established methods to arrive at valid, reliable results?
EDIT: I'm not sure if you're actually willing to challenge your own beliefs, but if you are, here's an article that describes a few well-known facts about how "corrupted" human memories inherently are. It's actually a bit scary when you think of it, which might be a reason why most people prefer not to. But I do recommend reading at least the first few paragraphs, it should be worth it. :)
https://www.newyorker.com/science/maria-konnikova/idea-happened-memory-recollection
Yes, that would be my conclusion so far. It's not comprehensive and I'm playing with a version that's pretty old by now, so it could have changed. After all, it's something that most players would expect to happen anyway, but that very expectation might lead to interpreting unrelated changes as being caused by hunting pressure). On the other hand, some of those claims are fairly old as well.
I maybe should have documented it properly, but I approached 2 red deer herds in Hirschfelden and a roosevelt elk and whitetail deer herd in Layton (no predators to mess with the animal schedules) where I knew their schedule and could expect them to show up without me messing with their schedules either.
I checked at what distance the various levels got attentive etc. when I approached and then shot three animals to get relatively high hunting pressure without deleting the zone. Restarted the game (to make them "forget" any possible state of raised nervousness as we are examing the effects of session-spanning hunting pressure and want to exclude the real short term effects of increased nervousness) and repeated the process. Tried to lure them for good measure (didn't bother to establish a baseline for that as I know it pretty well and it would have meant disturbing the animals for the other tests or another round.
I didn't notice any real difference.
Previously I already tested luring (calling) in Layton Lakes at a river crossing where I had the same animals cross every day in which process I also shot up a flock of mallards at the crossing area (that didn't contain any need zones of the crossing animals) way beyond need zone deletion level (I want to say 7?) The animals crossed like always, weren't nervous and could be lured like always.
Your last comment still doesn't show up as of the time of writing this, btw.
@Geronimo: Well, we've been over this many times. Observations are data, too, btw. if they are stringent enough and (ideally) properly documented. E.g. when asked if and how you made sure that an animal you think you "rehomed" was actually the same animal, it turned out you simply didn't. And when asked for a repeatable, falsifiable process, you weren't exactly forthcoming so far.
On the other hand, I had dozens of animals that went into their need zone behavior far from home and each time, reliably and repeatably, either nothing happened when I spotted them (when I already had spotted their actual need zone) or that far away need zone of them was put on the map.
Another thing that's important (and that you seem to think isn't your "job") is to try to disprove/falsify your own hypotheses. Otherwise, you'll quickly end up with superstitions and empty rituals that you add to the things that actually work. Your rather convoluted, but mostly completely meaningless luring process was a prime example for that. I do understand you enjoy the process of developing those ideas, and more power to you, but I don't quite agree with your self-assessment regarding your readiness to adapt your ideas in light of new evidence.
It was 6. I'll take the opportunity to link this old thread as it's a pretty good illustration of some of the mentioned problems.
https://steamcommunity.com/app/518790/discussions/0/3757723993433824940/
Note that I didn't mention seeing the same animals crossing each day, so it's perhaps not admissable as data (although I do know that crossing and which animals cross there regularly and I don't shoot them).
@Geronimo: It's true the data can be corrupted or devs can be wrong but you seem so enamoured with your hypotheses that you are going through great length to "protect" them, when ideally you should challenge them. Regarding hunting pressure, you apparently noticed effects you ascribe to it outside of the "predicted" area and longer than the predicte time (as you opened threads regarding both those cases). You even went so far as to state that the real/primary purpose of the hunting pressure circles is to indicate where an animal died and that the effects of hunting pressure are only vaguely linked to the circles.
Is an incorrect depiction of hunting pressure technically possible? Sure, but what's also possible is that your hypothesis is simply wrong and you pay special attention to events happening independently of hunting pressure if you can link them to it even adjacently (confirmation bias).
Coyotes like forests. Coyote feeding/sleeping zones are usually in forests.
Need zones are randomly distributed within an animals "range".
The "range" of animals is in which parts of the WHOLE map you will mostly find them. Whitetail on Layton Lake for instance, occupy mostly the south western and central parts of the map, whereas Blacktail are in the north eastern and central parts.
You can find animals outside of their "range" when they're going from zone to zone.
The range of animals on a map is not randomly distributed. Players will find whitetail need zones in the same general locations but the zones themselves are placed randomly within that area.
Edit: Birds aren't affected by hunting pressure in the same way as land animals. In fact, birds have a completely different spawning mechanic. Nobody has exactly figured out how birds work. The only thing concrete we can say, is they don't work the same as land animals.
And by "nobody", I mean hundreds of players haven't come together to share their anecdotal experience and testing to determine anything concrete like we have with land animals and great ones.
If they made a great one mallard, maybe the incentive would then exist...