Survive for an hour (1 Viewer)

[2Young2BBald]

X
X X
X Y Z X


X = Bison
Y = Hunter riding a Bison
Z = Me riding a Bison

All my pretty spacing went away. You get the picture - Bison wedge formation plowing through the arena while the hunter picks off the big game.

25 eagles dive bomb the hunter while the other 25 pick you off. ive come to the conclusion as someone else in here said is to maybe just have the hunter take you out to save the probable mauling....

Agree. The hawks are a problem.

Yup. Using a football field as the arena with my guys (7 African Buffalo & 3 Brown Bear) starting at one end and enemies at the other, i'd try to hold on to the horns and ride 1of the buffalo while 4 others box me in. that leaves me 2 buffalo and 3 bear to handle business. i send 2 bear at the hunter first, both which would cover the 100 yards in under 10 seconds. i lose 1 of the bears possibly to the hunter, but he isnt getting them both before he has the gun shoved up a place he doesn't want it shoved up. that would leave me with 2 1500 pound bears and 2 2000 pound capes to rally around my circle.

It comes down to the dang birds being the death of me.

Your Bear brings the Hunter's gun back. Problem solved

 

[Moe.]

For me it's more fun if you assume the animals can somehow magically "understand" the game without making them more or less intelligent or giving them special abilities. In my headcanon you can't instruct the bears to get into a particular formation or anything like that, and you probably can't ride a buffalo either. They're going to protect you, but they are still bears - you can't talk to them. So the extra intelligence from the hunter and to a lesser extent the gorillas is something to consider. I really think I'm back to hunter. Rats are a no-brainer for me the more I think on it, mostly because that's not how I want to die. My other thought is buffalo, mostly because I think I need their mass to protect me from the hunter at the beginning, but they just aren't aggressive enough and I don't think they can last an hour. I want both of my partners to be able to kill.

The wolves are interesting. I don't think anybody has picked them, but I think they are the most likely to kill you (other than the hunter) due to the way they hunt.

 

[Terminalxylem]

The wolves are interesting. I don't think anybody has picked them, but I think they are the most likely to kill you (other than the hunter) due to the way they hunt.

I like the buffalo, for a meat shield and rat stomping ability, and wolves for rapid, coordinated attack. Besides lions, they’re the only animal accustomed to group hunting strategy.

 

[Terminalxylem]

I think you guys are over estimating the rats. Rats generally prey on dead carcasses and smaller live animals. Rats are not likely to gang up and attack a live human especially around lots of other large animals—including hawks. Most of the animals here would not normally be the aggressor against a human unless they thought that human was a threat. Almost every animal here (with the exception of the gorillas and buffalo )feast on dead carcasses. Effectively, if the hunter could take out or hobble a couple of the buffalo—the other animals with the exception of the gorillas would spend at least an hour consuming thousands of pounds of buffalo meat. If for some reason a couple of the other animals somehow went against their natural instincts and decided against going after an easy meal—I would gladly be happy having an armed.skilled hunter and gorillas as protection. The ONLY animals in this hypothetical that wouldnt be distracted and motivated by a hobbled/dead animal would be the gorillas, the buffalo and the hunter. I would have to pick the hunter because having him on my side would be the easiest and safest way to provide the carcass of a dead animal through shooting the buffalo—and the gorilla would be the animal that would be the hardest to kill even with the aid of a hunter. They are insanely strong, they are massively intelligent, and because of this—I would choose them as a second partner. In a situation like this—you want to maximize your chances—but also maximize the amount of intelligence on your side. The intelligence levels of the hunter and the gorillas is by far and away greater than any of the other animals in this hypothetical.

Amen. Rats are the “clever” answer, but they aren’t killers, even when angry. Plus they’re slow, and not too bright.

For rat advocates, sheer number is the biggest selling point. If that is their main appeal, how many less rats would change your mind? Would 5000/1000/100 rats still be a top pick?

At what numeric threshold do rats become a legitimate threat?

 

[Dr. Octopus]

X
X X
X Y Z X


X = Bison
Y = Hunter riding a Bison
Z = Me riding a Bison

All my pretty spacing went away. You get the picture - Bison wedge formation plowing through the arena while the hunter picks off the big game.

25 eagles dive bomb the hunter while the other 25 pick you off. ive come to the conclusion as someone else in here said is to maybe just have the hunter take you out to save the probable mauling....

Agree. The hawks are a problem.

Meh, pick your poison. I can punch a hawk to some effect, I can’t punch a gorilla more than once.

Plus, the hawks always come up short in a big game situation, especially in an arena.

Hawks weigh about 2 pounds each - people are making them a bigger threat than they are.

 

[steelerfan1]

X
X X
X Y Z X


X = Bison
Y = Hunter riding a Bison
Z = Me riding a Bison

All my pretty spacing went away. You get the picture - Bison wedge formation plowing through the arena while the hunter picks off the big game.

25 eagles dive bomb the hunter while the other 25 pick you off. ive come to the conclusion as someone else in here said is to maybe just have the hunter take you out to save the probable mauling....

Agree. The hawks are a problem.

Yup. Using a football field as the arena with my guys (7 African Buffalo & 3 Brown Bear) starting at one end and enemies at the other, i'd try to hold on to the horns and ride 1of the buffalo while 4 others box me in. that leaves me 2 buffalo and 3 bear to handle business. i send 2 bear at the hunter first, both which would cover the 100 yards in under 10 seconds. i lose 1 of the bears possibly to the hunter, but he isnt getting them both before he has the gun shoved up a place he doesn't want it shoved up. that would leave me with 2 1500 pound bears and 2 2000 pound capes to rally around my circle.

It comes down to the dang birds being the death of me.

Maybe the buffalo/hawk combo is the winner?

They could certainly take out the hunter quickly, and eat rats under normal circumstances. Just don’t think they’d be much help with everything else. But maybe they could distract the large animals for an hour, while playing keep-away with your team of buffalo?

I just don’t think the 7 capes could handle the added load of the 3 kodiaks coming at them, so its a slow death by talons and beaks for me.

 

[steelerfan1]

X
X X
X Y Z X


X = Bison
Y = Hunter riding a Bison
Z = Me riding a Bison

All my pretty spacing went away. You get the picture - Bison wedge formation plowing through the arena while the hunter picks off the big game.

25 eagles dive bomb the hunter while the other 25 pick you off. ive come to the conclusion as someone else in here said is to maybe just have the hunter take you out to save the probable mauling....

Agree. The hawks are a problem.

Yup. Using a football field as the arena with my guys (7 African Buffalo & 3 Brown Bear) starting at one end and enemies at the other, i'd try to hold on to the horns and ride 1of the buffalo while 4 others box me in. that leaves me 2 buffalo and 3 bear to handle business. i send 2 bear at the hunter first, both which would cover the 100 yards in under 10 seconds. i lose 1 of the bears possibly to the hunter, but he isnt getting them both before he has the gun shoved up a place he doesn't want it shoved up. that would leave me with 2 1500 pound bears and 2 2000 pound capes to rally around my circle.

It comes down to the dang birds being the death of me.

Your Bear brings the Hunter's gun back. Problem solved

That would help, but not against the birds unless if was a shotgun

 

[Nugget]

For me it's more fun if you assume the animals can somehow magically "understand" the game without making them more or less intelligent or giving them special abilities. In my headcanon you can't instruct the bears to get into a particular formation or anything like that, and you probably can't ride a buffalo either. They're going to protect you, but they are still bears - you can't talk to them. So the extra intelligence from the hunter and to a lesser extent the gorillas is something to consider. I really think I'm back to hunter. Rats are a no-brainer for me the more I think on it, mostly because that's not how I want to die. My other thought is buffalo, mostly because I think I need their mass to protect me from the hunter at the beginning, but they just aren't aggressive enough and I don't think they can last an hour. I want both of my partners to be able to kill.

The wolves are interesting. I don't think anybody has picked them, but I think they are the most likely to kill you (other than the hunter) due to the way they hunt.

I need my hunter to take down a buffalo early so I can hide in the carcass for an hour. The rats will cause havoc while I chill like in Empire Strikes Back.

 

[jvdesigns2002]

I think you guys are over estimating the rats. Rats generally prey on dead carcasses and smaller live animals. Rats are not likely to gang up and attack a live human especially around lots of other large animals—including hawks. Most of the animals here would not normally be the aggressor against a human unless they thought that human was a threat. Almost every animal here (with the exception of the gorillas and buffalo )feast on dead carcasses. Effectively, if the hunter could take out or hobble a couple of the buffalo—the other animals with the exception of the gorillas would spend at least an hour consuming thousands of pounds of buffalo meat. If for some reason a couple of the other animals somehow went against their natural instincts and decided against going after an easy meal—I would gladly be happy having an armed.skilled hunter and gorillas as protection. The ONLY animals in this hypothetical that wouldnt be distracted and motivated by a hobbled/dead animal would be the gorillas, the buffalo and the hunter. I would have to pick the hunter because having him on my side would be the easiest and safest way to provide the carcass of a dead animal through shooting the buffalo—and the gorilla would be the animal that would be the hardest to kill even with the aid of a hunter. They are insanely strong, they are massively intelligent, and because of this—I would choose them as a second partner. In a situation like this—you want to maximize your chances—but also maximize the amount of intelligence on your side. The intelligence levels of the hunter and the gorillas is by far and away greater than any of the other animals in this hypothetical.

Amen. Rats are the “clever” answer, but they aren’t killers, even when angry. Plus they’re slow, and not too bright.

For rat advocates, sheer number is the biggest selling point. If that is their main appeal, how many less rats would change your mind? Would 5000/1000/100 rats still be a top pick?

At what numeric threshold do rats become a legitimate threat?

I honestly don’t know if there is a number that would make them legitimate. Rats are generally scared of light, loud noises, their intelligence level is low, and they generally are very low on the food chain when they are out in the open. Having the hunter on your side is a huge advantage because rats, hawks, bears, lions, wolves and bison are all scared of loud noises. You have a hunter shoot his gun sporadically—-and those animals are going to stay away from you. That leaves you to mainly worry about the crocodiles—but those are animals that the hunter can also target to shoot, Secondly, crocs/alligators tend to be the most aggressive and lethal in/around bodies of water. It’s pretty rare for them to be lethal to humans on dry land—especially dangerous to humans that include an armed hunter and perhaps some protective gorillas. Literally—the hunter could shoot the crocodiles/gators—and the sound of the gun itself would pretty much deter all of the other animals with perhaps the exception of the gorillas—who if you have on your side—would solve that problem.

 

[GregR]

This has come up a few times, but I think worth stressing what's known and what isn't.

You know you'll face them in an arena. You don't know particulars. So making assumptions like that the rafters are accessible, or even that there are rafters, in making your selections is a big assumption that could cost you your life.

I think the same with assumptions the animals will do something other than attack you. It's stated, the animals you don't select will attack you. That will happen. So assuming they will stop to eat rats out of hunger, instead of doing what you were told they would do (attack you), is probably a pretty bad assumption to risk your life on.

Same with making big assumptions on the defending animals, like that they can understand your commands (apart from the hunter). All you know is they will defend you. I wouldn't personally attribute the animals any levels of defensive action beyond what a faithful dog would do to defend a family member, a mother bear would take to defend her cub, etc.

 

[GregR]

I think you guys are over estimating the rats. Rats generally prey on dead carcasses and smaller live animals. Rats are not likely to gang up and attack a live human especially around lots of other large animals—including hawks. Most of the animals here would not normally be the aggressor against a human unless they thought that human was a threat. Almost every animal here (with the exception of the gorillas and buffalo )feast on dead carcasses. Effectively, if the hunter could take out or hobble a couple of the buffalo—the other animals with the exception of the gorillas would spend at least an hour consuming thousands of pounds of buffalo meat. If for some reason a couple of the other animals somehow went against their natural instincts and decided against going after an easy meal—I would gladly be happy having an armed.skilled hunter and gorillas as protection. The ONLY animals in this hypothetical that wouldnt be distracted and motivated by a hobbled/dead animal would be the gorillas, the buffalo and the hunter. I would have to pick the hunter because having him on my side would be the easiest and safest way to provide the carcass of a dead animal through shooting the buffalo—and the gorilla would be the animal that would be the hardest to kill even with the aid of a hunter. They are insanely strong, they are massively intelligent, and because of this—I would choose them as a second partner. In a situation like this—you want to maximize your chances—but also maximize the amount of intelligence on your side. The intelligence levels of the hunter and the gorillas is by far and away greater than any of the other animals in this hypothetical.

Amen. Rats are the “clever” answer, but they aren’t killers, even when angry. Plus they’re slow, and not too bright.

For rat advocates, sheer number is the biggest selling point. If that is their main appeal, how many less rats would change your mind? Would 5000/1000/100 rats still be a top pick?

At what numeric threshold do rats become a legitimate threat?

Without going through trying to add it up, there's over 200 rats per attacking animal. Some animals would probably take less than 200 rats to stop them, others might take more (and rats that freed up from another target could help).

Like a wolf is not going to survive 200 rats. Rats can be pretty vicious, just they don't normally attack things bigger than them, like humans. Not unless cornered. But we know they will attack, either you or the animals attacking you.

The only negative I see on the rats is amount of time to take down an animal. I think wolves would never reach you. There would be a literal sea of rats that would leap on them and they would soon be fighting for their lives.

Buffalo on the other hand, I imagine could charge pretty effectively through the rats and it would take a lot of them jumping up and climbing on them and biting in sensitive areas to affect them. Enough they very likely could reach me. My biggest worries versus the rat hoard are the huge charging animals, and the hunter one-shotting me.

The hunter, I do consider hiding behind my guarding animals to be a possible mitigation until the rat horde reaches him. Though I can't assume my other animals will just stand in front of me, I can at least dodge about behind them trying to not give the hunter a good shot. So larger animals would help there.

 

[Rustoleum]

Been doing some research. Evidence shows that with a Buffalo, one can see off a bear and a hunter with relative ease. So that’s a good start.

Guy on a Buffalo.

 

[Terminalxylem]

This has come up a few times, but I think worth stressing what's known and what isn't.

You know you'll face them in an arena. You don't know particulars. So making assumptions like that the rafters are accessible, or even that there are rafters, in making your selections is a big assumption that could cost you your life.

I think the same with assumptions the animals will do something other than attack you. It's stated, the animals you don't select will attack you. That will happen. So assuming they will stop to eat rats out of hunger, instead of doing what you were told they would do (attack you), is probably a pretty bad assumption to risk your life on.

Same with making big assumptions on the defending animals, like that they can understand your commands (apart from the hunter). All you know is they will defend you. I wouldn't personally attribute the animals any levels of defensive action beyond what a faithful dog would do to defend a family member, a mother bear would take to defend her cub, etc.

If you assume the animals are only gonna do animal things, you need to take the hunter. Even stuff bent on killing you will scatter/flee at the sound of a rifle shot. Add in dealing with charging buffalo, and I think surviving an hour is pretty realistic. Hawks still could cause problems though.

 

[JAA]

I think you guys are over estimating the rats. Rats generally prey on dead carcasses and smaller live animals. Rats are not likely to gang up and attack a live human especially around lots of other large animals—including hawks. Most of the animals here would not normally be the aggressor against a human unless they thought that human was a threat. Almost every animal here (with the exception of the gorillas and buffalo )feast on dead carcasses. Effectively, if the hunter could take out or hobble a couple of the buffalo—the other animals with the exception of the gorillas would spend at least an hour consuming thousands of pounds of buffalo meat. If for some reason a couple of the other animals somehow went against their natural instincts and decided against going after an easy meal—I would gladly be happy having an armed.skilled hunter and gorillas as protection. The ONLY animals in this hypothetical that wouldnt be distracted and motivated by a hobbled/dead animal would be the gorillas, the buffalo and the hunter. I would have to pick the hunter because having him on my side would be the easiest and safest way to provide the carcass of a dead animal through shooting the buffalo—and the gorilla would be the animal that would be the hardest to kill even with the aid of a hunter. They are insanely strong, they are massively intelligent, and because of this—I would choose them as a second partner. In a situation like this—you want to maximize your chances—but also maximize the amount of intelligence on your side. The intelligence levels of the hunter and the gorillas is by far and away greater than any of the other animals in this hypothetical.

Amen. Rats are the “clever” answer, but they aren’t killers, even when angry. Plus they’re slow, and not too bright.

For rat advocates, sheer number is the biggest selling point. If that is their main appeal, how many less rats would change your mind? Would 5000/1000/100 rats still be a top pick?

At what numeric threshold do rats become a legitimate threat?

*wags finger* uh uh

how intelligent are rats - Google Suche

Rats are considered to be highly intelligent animals, capable of complex learning, remembering intricate tasks, solving puzzles, and navigating mazes, making them one of the most intelligent rodents; scientists often use them in psychology experiments due to their brain structure similar to humans and their strong decision-making abilities.

 

[JAA]

Buffalo on the other hand, I imagine could charge pretty effectively through the rats and it would take a lot of them jumping up and climbing on them and biting in sensitive areas to affect them. Enough they very likely could reach me. My biggest worries versus the rat hoard are the huge charging animals, and the hunter one-shotting me.

Im thinking about 12 buffalo ball bites to take down a male. Then the others will go Jerry Penacoli on the remaining buffalo.

 

[The Z Machine]

I think it comes down how much instruction the animals protecting you will adhere to. If we assume that these are wild animals and not trained and cannot perform any complex strategy, that changes things. A horde of 10,000 rats would be devastating if they could work as a group and execute the "go for the eyes" tactic. But that may not be the case. I think you have to take the smartest and most violent carnivores instead. I think that means lions and the hunter. Hunter tries to pick off the stampeding Buffalo and the bears. The lions circle around you and protect the humans from any close range attacking animals. Lion vs. brown bear would be an interesting match-up... there would be blood.

 

[steelerfan1]

I think it comes down how much instruction the animals protecting you will adhere to. If we assume that these are wild animals and not trained and cannot perform any complex strategy, that changes things. A horde of 10,000 rats would be devastating if they could work as a group and execute the "go for the eyes" tactic. But that may not be the case. I think you have to take the smartest and most violent carnivores instead. I think that means lions and the hunter. Hunter tries to pick off the stampeding Buffalo and the bears. The lions circle around you and protect the humans from any close range attacking animals. Lion vs. brown bear would be an interesting match-up... there would be blood.

Buffalo and lion. 7 Buffalo vs 4 lion has me picking the 7 buffalo.

 

[JAA]

I think it comes down how much instruction the animals protecting you will adhere to. If we assume that these are wild animals and not trained and cannot perform any complex strategy, that changes things. A horde of 10,000 rats would be devastating if they could work as a group and execute the "go for the eyes" tactic. But that may not be the case. I think you have to take the smartest and most violent carnivores instead. I think that means lions and the hunter. Hunter tries to pick off the stampeding Buffalo and the bears. The lions circle around you and protect the humans from any close range attacking animals. Lion vs. brown bear would be an interesting match-up... there would be blood.

I dont think there can be no control since the animals will be attacking me and I need to choose a team. Clearly my team knows not to attack me.