And they never fill in the herbivore slot, wasn't that what I was reading? Filling a carnivore role in a simplified ecosystem, meaning they are being used to fill the "eating other creatures" roll. My omnivores will be selected for their ability to hunt/eat other creatures, to more or less act as a carnivore. To keep the population of other creatures down, and never selected for its ability to eat plants.
This is a *game*. The ecological web is *highly* simplified.
All indications are that a balanced eco system simply requires 3 items of type A (plants), which allow 2 items of type B (herbivores), which allows 1 item of type C or D (omni- or carnivore). That apparently is all there is to the balance, not complexly modeled system where an ecosystem is "balanced" when the predators keep the population of herbivores at the right level so they don't kill off all the plants.
In other words it has nothing to do with the behavior or abilities of the creature: All "ecological balance" cares about is the "vore" label.
Except from a gameplay standpoint, you're always going to need a hunter. If you're playing an herbivore, it's a bit boring if nothing hunts you. If nothing attacks you. The reasonable choice for this is a Carnivore, but since Omnivores act as Carnivores, it is slightly troubling to those of us who picture their herbivores as being particularly docile (and/or prey) creatures. Both of you are perhaps misunderstanding the other.
I think Crowster's point is that Omnivores act as Carnivores, no matter the circumstances of their design or how inefficient they'd be and with a complete disregard for Creative Intent. You're point is that the game just fills the slot, and it wouldn't have to actively control the population of the herbivores.
Both are right, but they aren't compatible points. An omnivore/carnivore might not have to control the population in a realistic way, but it will still often act as a predator, especially since you are never the top predator (until Tribe Phase).