Ludia Forums

Global Creature Saturation: Time to Re-think Local Populations?

I have been mulling over just how silly the amount of globals tends to (at least in my experience) overrun local zones to where we have reached a point in which I actually have difficulty many days remembering where the borders lie between zones because I’ll be darned if the amount of creatures from their own territories actually populate the map to be meaningful in any significant way.

As time goes on and more and more creatures are added to the index, we find ourselves nearing critical mass and that gives me legitimacy in my concerns that Ludia will implement another “seasonal purge” like they have in the past where creatures such as Apatosaurus and Stegosaurus (maybe others, as well? It has been a while) were simply removed from the spawn pool during the era of the game in which they were still very relevant and we had seen a brief but disruptive change in the contrast of power between players who had the likes of Stegodeus at 30 and those who were still working on their own.

Now, I will admit that was a much simpler time in the game’s history and it wasn’t egregiously long a time for these changes to be rectified but it showed how very staple creatures in the meta simply could be so widely available and then suddenly NOT: being torn from the game with massive outcry. That’s why the exclusivity of certain creatures as we know them today to be MOSTLY more reserved. We still grumble at some of it but Ludia did actually bother to be a bit more cautious moving forward as a result.

However, with this first migration schedule being outlined to what the vocal of us have been asking for (a monthly rotation), I feel Ludia should implement and that we, the playerbase, should embrace a slightly larger pool for each respective zone OR consider alternatives that may (or may not, time would tell) be a more reasonable answer to this conundrum. As it stands, there are simply too many globals that can (and often do!) make said zones relatively pointless with how they can easily crowd out spawn points.

Without going into a crazy scheme of convoluted methods to (temporarily) solve this issue, I would like to propose the four (4) most obvious options available, as outlined below.

  1. Each local gets a handful more creatures. Easily the most straightforward of these options, it would not only help define zones and make global spawns less intrusive with the sheer volume of completely, utter random RNG for spawn nodes but it would also help incentivize moving across different locals. Complacency in one’s own local or envy of those of others may very well change in attitude for the better.

  2. Create more local zones. This one is a bit more divisive, in my opinion, but it could very well be a much better long term solution. Doubling the current number of locals from 4 to 8 would be a little harder to accept for some folks given how we have become accustomed to the current system and Ludia would need to put in a little more work for how to divvy up the map accordingly. That said, it definitely would create an environment in which DNA requesting would be a bit more varied.

There will ALWAYS be those folks who try to always ask for the most “exclusive” DNA and I know we can never fully address that so I would ask you please put the pitchforks away because this is not the proper discussion to tackle that.

Again, this is a LONG TERM remedy. I can even envision a world in which Ludia use it as the basis to expand on how we can interact more with our alliance (perhaps others, too) or even create a global A.I. Marketplace that has clearly defined resources for which we can trade for set amounts of gold/DNA (I’m not entirely sold on the idea of HC, that’s ripe for abuse) that only occurs once or twice a month because of just how much larger variety would be available on a day to day basis: personal use or saving for a specific and LIMITED amount of whatever the hypothetical market would want on any given rotation.

I’ll stop now and move on since I’m probably jumping the gun on what Ludia could innovate as a result of taking this route.

  1. Provide each sector of the map with a significant amount of extra node spawns for which local creatures could occupy. Perhaps even make them independent or, at least, roll for a priority slot over the global spawns. Many times it is especially uneventful being stuck in one location as you may barely see anything spawn past the initial map fill because there are so few available creatures to dart and the likelihood of them being globals one does not care for, hits particularly hard compared to a player who is able to be mobile enough to reveal more spawns.

Obviously, Ludia would have to be careful not to overpopulate each area or else players will have a reduced engagement level to be bothered moving AT ALL when they actually aren’t locked down by commitments such as school or work. I do believe a fair balance can be struck, though. I cannot see it being as catastrophic an impact as some worry-warts might have you believe.

  1. Global creatures are thinned out via battle incubators and our free 6 hour incubators. This is the least ideal option out of the whole lot. However, I can’t really say I’m EXCITED to keep opening a 6-hour incubator only to get less than a single dart of DNA on a very easy-to-find common constantly. It’s depressing.

Also, the battle-exclusives are already an incentive for some folks but I mean to have the “excess” as non-specific to any arena tier when it comes to that side of things. It would also have to mean that Ludia would have to actually cave a bit to accommodate giving more overall DNA per incubator won without the negative compensation of less gold or boosts.

The battle rewards aren’t really that terribly much and many people are still quite leery of battling more than “just enough” for whatever their personal reasons may be. I would recommend that if battle incubators were affected, as a trial run, just do it for the normal 3-hour incubators. If it has shown to be positive in driving player engagement in PvP after a few months of analyzing participation rates, expand it to the other battle incubators.

Conclusion: I would really appreciate the community’s input on what they feel could be done to alleviate the growing problem of our global creature population overtaking the zones which I feel are woefully under-represented in the grand scheme of things, given how their purpose is gradually becoming less and less effective as time goes on.

I like the idea of having fewer globals and more locals, especially since locals rotate monthly now. They just have to be careful not to go too far in the other direction: I don’t want all globals and no locals either. You end up finding a lot of locals over the course of the month anyway, so they could use some more variety imo.

1 Like