I like the idea; it sounds pretty fun. It would be cool training your animals to being very intelligent, then to watch them outwit the Predator player in the video. Then again if they are killed it would be very dissapointing. I guess that''s why you should give some type of incentive to the player to allow his animals to go against the Predator. Maybe increase their knowledge/experience?

Good idea, and would like to see it develop into a reality. Good luck if you plan on doing this.

"Ask not what your country can do for you; ask what you can do for your country" - JFK

quote: ...how do you represent an animal? What are its fundamental building blocks?

I suppose you could try to use bones and joints as the building blocks, but this is probably overkill... Among mammals and birds, there is hardly any variation in the basic skeleton layout. A more reasonably choice for building blocks, I think, would be body parts like torso, neck, head, tail, and limbs. By varying the sizes and numbers of these components, you could get a pretty good variety of creatures. By allowing multiple torsoes, you could even get segmented, insect-like creatures.

TechWins, yeah, it seems like a breeder''s society should gain something from a predator attack to offset the inevitable loss in numbers. However, I think the idea of animals gaining experience is not consistent with the notion of breeding... their experience will not be inherited (right?), so it''s kinda useless. An incentive is needed, but I don''t have any ideas just yet.

I think we do have all the important problems solved now.

The game (in my mind) works like this:
- Breeders develop better animals. An animal is represented as a heirarchy of parts. Animals are bred. For a fee, they may also be genetically engineered.
- Hunter develop better weapons. A weapon is represented as a heirarchy of parts. Parts are manually combined in any configuration. Assembly costs a small fee.
- When a hunter wins, it capture an animal, which it then sells on the open market to breeders.
- When a breeder wins, it keeps the supplies brought by the hunter to that battle, which it then sells on the open market to hunters.

The problem of "what is the breeder''s incentive?" is solved: When they fight and win, they gain weapons which they sell for cash. You see how the game is nice and "symmetrical" now? Hunters and breeders are fighting each other, but are also dependant on one another. In the end, it''s a very economy-driven game.

I really like what we''ve put together here. I know it might be completely different from what you are envisioning, though, Eric, so tell me what you think.

Well, we have a few options here:

In my original model, Breeders are playing a Sim game. Predators are just an obstacle to their society''s development. Predators are an always-present danger, not an enemy to be defeated. I see the typical animal society being bred to flee hunters, not fight them. Predators are playing a action game, FPS-style or more likely squad-based with an overhead camera. Animals are elusive and sometimes dangerous... the goal of a hunting episode is more like "How many can I catch?" rather than "Can I survive?".

TerranFury, our refined model is definitely more symmetrical... almost as if hunters and breeders are opposing sides in a war. Their inter-dependence (through the animal/weapon market) makes this a little more interesting, though.

Earlier, I mentioned a third model. Everyone is a breeder, and hunting is an optional activity, a way to steal specimens from other players. The animal/weapon market is just as valid here. I''m less enthusiastic about this model, though, because the squad-based hunting game is really the game I want to make... I don''t want it to be secondary to breeding.

I''m not in a position to start developing this game, but I''ve jotted most of this stuff down. The good thing is that the online element of this game wouldn''t require expensive servers or massive bandwidth, so this game may be feasible for me sometime in the future. Hopefully I''ll come back to this idea and one of these three models will stand out.

To TerranFury and everyone else, thanks for your suggestions. There are still some unexplored areas here, in particular, the breeders'' customization of their land/environment, and the details of predator/animal combat, so feel free to post your thoughts.

I liked the original social vs antisocial concept better than this parallel economy idea.

IMO you need to exaggerate the difference in play styles, not assimilate them under a uniform paradigm. Originally, the difference was achieved by forcing relational choices on one and target choices on the other. If you cross-breed these notions you can create a harmonious balance without assimilation. The solution is therefore to combine relational choices with socio-systemic structures, playing off weaknesses with redundancy in the latter, and combine target choices with process constraints, playing off size with number in the latter.

The breeders will therefore make choices about combinations of beast and choices about how the group''s warning systems work - too narrow and less food is gained, too wide and more risk is inherent. The predators will, similarly, will make choices about which target to attack and under what conditions - the wrong target will have no nutrition, the wrong situation will result in no food.

You then allow each to cohabit equally between mutually exclusive ground and mutually inclusive ground, the way birds and cats do - living independantly indoors and in the air, but battling for shared ground/food outdoors near earth.

I really like TerranFury''s model. Breeders are still playing a sim game, hunters are still playing a tactical game. But both sides are aware of the consequences of their actions on the other side. They''re in competition, but it isn''t really antagonistic.

Now for some random thoughts...

Cuteness should definitely be emphasized, since this is a game that seems like it would have strong kid and casual-gamer appeal. Capturing animals instead of killing them, cute animals, slightly comical weapons.

Hunters should only have some fixed amount of time to catch animals. That makes stealth a viable defense mechanism for animals.

Something needs to be in the game to keep breeders from using "safety through mediocrity." Whatever criteria the hunters use to select prey, the breeders will alter their animals to avoid it. Hunter priorities should change over time, or breeders need to have an incentive that outweighs the risk of hunting, in order to breed better animals instead of worse ones.

You might look at the "Creatures" series of games, and the older SimLife (or even SimEarth) games for some inspiration.

Breeding prey species, such as rabbits, should be a viable tactic for breeders as well. Rabbits reproduce rapidly and get killed easily, elephants the reverse. While elephants might have a better chance of killing a hunter and getting his stuff, rabbits invest less in their offspring to make up for higher death rates, and will go through more generations and evolve faster.

Other possible tactics for breeding survivors: living in rough terrain, speed, ferociousness, stealth, rapid reproduction, imitation of undesirable animals, resistance to weapons.

Value of creatures might be determined by open market, but should also be influenced by the difficulty in breeding the creature. I''d suggest a "game commission" which will buy even worthless creatures at very low prices, and which will offer "floor" prices for more valuable creatures. This will give you some ability to direct the economics without being overly heavy-handed, as well as giving people some idea of what a creature ought to be worth.