NBW base rates change per biome

me and a friend were talking about how it's weird that gold wolves seem to prevalent to befriend when most wolves are... not gold. and i came up with the idea to have regional differences in nbw you can find!

important note: you should still be able to find all bases in all of the biomes, i don't think any of them should be exclusive to or excluded from any biomes. however, i think having them be more common in certain areas would lend some immersion and depth to the game!

the biomes:

glacier: predominantly white and pale, washed out colors; some tans and greys, the rest rare

tundra: predominantly white and pale, washed out colors like the glacier but greys and tans are more common, blacks and browns may be found as well; the rest are rare

taiga: mostly greys and muted colors, some browns, pale colors and blacks aren't super common but aren't rare either; the rest are rare

coniferous forest: greys and browns dominate, blacks common as well; whites and pale colors now pretty rare; red-tones uncommon but not necessarily rare; the rest rare

mountains: greys and browns dominate, blacks are common, pale colors aren't as rare as in coniferous; rest are rare

grasslands: greys and pales dominate, browns also fairly common, blacks and reds uncommon; rest are rare

deciduous forest: browns and tans dominate; greys, blacks, and reds common as well but less so, golds aren't particularly rare; pales and whites are rare

riparian forest: riparian forests are forests near water, so this could be a highway of sorts where you could find all base types with equal chance!

prairie: mostly golds, tans, and pales; blacks, browns, and reds less common; whites rare

desert: predominantly tans and golds, reds uncommon but present; browns and blacks more uncommon; whites rare

swamp: tans, browns, and reds most common, leans towards darker tones than lighter; blacks and golds uncommon but present; pales and whites rare

rainforest: reds, browns, and golds most common, brighter tones favored; blacks, greys, and pales uncommon to rare

i'd personally lump khaki in with the grey tones, other greens that may be added to the nbw pool i'm unsure of though. chased i'd say should probably be found anywhere as is currently.

i'm open to suggestions and critique! i definitely don't see this being an urgent thing or something i'd expect to be added in soon, but i do think it would be cool to add maybe once the coders are done working on more important things, or if it's something that's pretty easy to add then maybe sooner! :3

addition by Mossfoot #23226

Could also just have rates for color group & shade group, as opposed to separate chances for each individual base. For example glacier could be 80% light, 15% medium, 5% dark, and 45% cool, 30% monochrome, 20% muted, and 5% warm. So you have a 36% chance of finding a cool light wolf and a 0.25% chance of finding a warm dark wolf.

A few other rate imaginings for fun:

Coniferous forest: 70% dark, 25% medium, 5% light; 40% cool, 30% monochrome, 20% muted, 10% warm

Deciduous forest: 50% dark, 40% medium, 10% light; 40% warm, 30% muted, 20% monochrome, 10% cool

Desert: 80% light, 15% medium, 5% dark; 60% warm, 30% muted, 7% monochrome, 3% cool

Mountains: 50% medium, 25% light, 25% dark; 40% cool, 30% monochrome, 20% muted, 10% warm

Grasslands: 50% light, 40% medium, 10% dark;  30% muted, 30% monochrome, 20% warm, 20% cool

Prairie: 50% light, 40% medium, 10% dark; 40% warm, 30% muted, 20% monochrome, 10% cool

Rainforest: 50% medium, 30% dark, 20% light; 50% warm, 40% cool, 7% muted, 3% monochrome

Taiga: 50% light, 30% medium, 20% dark; 40% monochrome, 30% cool, 25% muted, 5% warm

Tundra: 60% light, 30% medium, 10% dark; 40% cool, 40% monochrome, 15% muted, 5% warm

Riparian forest: 50% dark, 30% medium, 20% light; 40% muted, 20% warm, 20% monochrome, 20% cool

Swamp: 40% medium, 35% light, 25% dark; 40% monochrome, 30% muted, 20% cool, 10% warm

Sounds fun, I like it!  It's always nice to see more biome differences.

Support for this as it Makes Wolf encounters more realistic.

Oh, this is a really neat idea! I love this. It'd give people a lot more reason to go to particular biomes for exploring, it'd go a long way toward making the biomes feel different, and it seems like it would be a pretty good bang to buck ratio as far as the amount of coding required goes. 100% support.

I love this idea. Could also just have rates for color group & shade group, as opposed to separate chances for each individual base. For example glacier could be 80% light, 15% medium, 5% dark, and 45% cool, 30% monochrome, 20% muted, and 5% warm. So you have a 36% chance of finding a cool light wolf and a 0.25% chance of finding a warm dark wolf.

A few other rate imaginings for fun:

Coniferous forest: 70% dark, 25% medium, 5% light; 40% cool, 30% monochrome, 20% muted, 10% warm

Deciduous forest: 50% dark, 40% medium, 10% light; 40% warm, 30% muted, 20% monochrome, 10% cool

Desert: 80% light, 15% medium, 5% dark; 60% warm, 30% muted, 7% monochrome, 3% cool

Mountains: 50% medium, 25% light, 25% dark; 40% cool, 30% monochrome, 20% muted, 10% warm

Grasslands: 50% light, 40% medium, 10% dark;  30% muted, 30% monochrome, 20% warm, 20% cool

Prairie: 50% light, 40% medium, 10% dark; 40% warm, 30% muted, 20% monochrome, 10% cool

Tried to express trends here like "both forests lean dark, but coniferous leans cool while deciduous leans warm" and "grasslands->prairie->desert gets progressively warm," and having less extreme rates in the starting biomes. Of course it would have to be balanced to make sure total rates are roughly equivalent, but that's not that hard.

Mossfoot, I really like that addition! I think it makes a lot of sense to have it vary by shade and group. I could highkey see the heavily forested areas -- deciduous, coniferous  swamp, and rainforest -- leaning heavily towards Dark, while open areas -- grasslands, prairie, desert, glacier -- lean heavily towards Light, and the in-between areas -- mountains, riparian, taiga, and tundra -- leaning more heavily towards Medium shades. 

Ohhh, I really like that Mossfoot! Once I'm out of class I'll add that up top as another possibility! That would also probably be easier to code, so it makes sense! If you want to add the rest of the biomes yourself feel free, or I can add them after class, it's your choice!

Here's the rest of the biomes (I think lol):

Rainforest: 50% medium, 30% dark, 20% light; 50% warm, 40% cool, 7% muted, 3% monochrome

Taiga: 50% light, 30% medium, 20% dark; 40% monochrome, 30% cool, 25% muted, 5% warm

Tundra: 60% light, 30% medium, 10% dark; 40% cool, 40% monochrome, 15% muted, 5% warm

Riparian forest: 50% dark, 30% medium, 20% light; 40% muted, 20% warm, 20% monochrome, 20% cool

Swamp: 40% medium, 35% light, 25% dark; 40% monochrome, 30% muted, 20% cool, 10% warm

This would definitely need tweaking to balance all the rates, for example the sum for dark is 310 whereas the sum for light is 485. xP But you get the idea! In addition to adding a bit of regional character to befriending, it'd be useful for people who prefer certain colors, like I enjoy warm dark bases so I'd be NBW-hunting in the deciduous forest. Also shoutout to rainforest for being mostly the opposites warm or cool, we've got the colorful wolves there. :P

As an addition to this -- would this system include the "sorting out" of chased wolves? For instance, if someone chased a cool light wolf, would they have a higher chance of showing up in the tundra?

I like it (and Mossfoot's addition)

It gives biomes more individual flavor, it makes sense, and it helps people who might be looking for specific color group NBWs for projects or lore reasons.