Wolves shouldn't act like zombies

[th3s0n1c]

1 minute ago, Kalen said:

I dont know why you keep focusing on mythical monsters.... no one is saying they are mythical monsters.   We certainly wouldn't want mythical monsters in our zombie game.

 

You asked what the point was.... I'm assuming the point was to give us a more difficult version of an existing wolf.   You don't like that, and I get it.... but just because you don't like the reason doesn't invalidate the reason.

Well.. there's a reason why they are called "direwolves". But fine, despite the fact that a moderator that keeps in close touch with TFP staff said they are prehistorical (and never once actually said in his original statement that it was just his headcanon but not the actual canon).. lets go with a mutation theory. So, once again, why arent there any mutated (harder versions) of snakes, coyotes, stags, chickens, mountain lions and rabbits? (While we do have a direwolf, zombie bears, spitting vultures and Grace - who's a very different case, since she doesnt wander the world, not even in horde nights).

And it's not that I dont like it, I never cared about it until now - that I've stopped to think about it - and I just found it dull.. and its not that I'm trying to invalidate it, quite the opposite, Im defending the idea that it could be worked on for a better concept.

When I said "whats the point of introducing it in the first place" I didnt mean I found it useless.. I was actually asking what was the thought process behind introducing it back then. Guess I just bad worded it out.

Roland was the one saying I'm criticizing it. I wasnt it. If anything, I was trying to add a constructive criticism.

[Kalen]

3 minutes ago, th3s0n1c said:

So, once again, why arent there any mutated (harder versions) of snakes, coyotes, stags, chickens, mountain lions and rabbits?

Because TFP don't want them?   Or haven't got to them yet?   Who knows?

 

4 minutes ago, th3s0n1c said:

When I said "whats the point of introducing it in the first place" I didnt mean I found it useless.. I was actually asking what was the thought process behind introducing it back then. Guess I just bad worded it out.

No worries, man.... I didn't mean to imply that I thought you found them useless.   You said pointless.   I'm just saying it's not pointless.   You may not agree with the decision, but the decision certainly had a point.

[Roland]

1 hour ago, th3s0n1c said:

I didnt say they were to be introduced.. I questioned what was even the point of introducing them in the first place, more specifically: I'm saying that as they stand, they are pretty pointless (on just being a bigger version of an animal that already exists and they behave the same) and the whole prehistoric thing YOU (addressing @Kalen's post above)  talked about is sort of... non sense. Are we getting dinossaurs next too? Maybe those prehistoric sharks? Just because?

Never once have I said they should be removed. I just said they should be reworked into being different to add variety (even if they were simply changed to zombie wolves would be enough).

My bit of nonsense was just me posing a theory about how they could be explained. Meganoth posed another one. Mine was more Jules Verne and his more Michael Crichton. Kalen also chimed in with the thought that maybe they are just big wolves that the locals started calling "Dire Wolves" and it caught on. I'd be happy with any of those explanations because I couldn't care less about this "issue" really. I'm perfectly content with dogs, coyotes, wolves, and dire wolves all being varieties of canines in the game and all essentially operating the same way. The simple visual variety is good enough for me. BUT....like I said, I personally enjoy a variety of special abilities in the game so I would not be opposed to giving dire wolves something extra to make them behaviorly different than other enemies. But I don't want the devs to spend one bit of time changing their art so that they are not canines any more since we already have canines in the game. They're fine.

 

1 hour ago, th3s0n1c said:

Arent people always saying that "the game is still under development and things can change"? Pretty sure lots of things that were introduced years ago are still going through changes.. and this is just another case of players pointing out that a change to this already existent enemy could be done as well.

It is but we are now beginning year 8 in what will ultimately be an 8 year project (maybe 9) and the time for completely reworking things is over. Add an ability to an existing entity? Fine. Rework it into some kind of new entity? Doubtful at this point. I admit that the forums were much more exciting and fun back in years 1-5 when there was still a lot of experimentation and re-implementation going on but we are in the final months now before they want a shipable product and their development has shifted from experimentation and exploration of optional designs to polishing and finishing up the ones they've got. Back then Madmole said "Sure" and "Probably" and "If we can" to every idea offered to him. He hasn't said those words to proferred ideas in a long time now-- because they have the final features already in mind that they want to add and they are doing no more or less than their plan. But the game is still developing.

 

1 hour ago, th3s0n1c said:

You're right, you werent the one sayin we needed more variety, but you also said "If their behavior were to be changed I wouldn’t want them to become basically land vultures." When that, per se, would already be something different from a land vulture. Vultures dont run away after injured and they dont hunt in packs.

 

I said that in response to another suggestion to make it so they follow you but don't attack until you are wounded to a certain degree. I said that THAT specific suggestion would make them basically into land vultures. I offered an alternative suggestion for a different type of behavior that would be different than vultures. That's it. But I didn't suggest reworking them into some other kind of enemy and I certainly am not opposed to having all enemy hostile creatures in the game looking visually different despite the fact that they all behave hostile toward the player. When a wolf attacks me I never think, "Pfff...might as well just be a zombie".

 

Now, I'm sorry for butting into this thread. I only did so because the idea of having a pack of wolves slowly over time develop around you and then attack as a pack came to me and I thought I would share. I really really have no...ahem...dog in this particular fight. I am perfectly happy with dogs, coyotes, wolves, and dire wolves all existing in the game and all behaving in generally the same way as each other and the zombies. But I'd also be happy to see some new behaviors added to the game, for sure. 

 

 

27 minutes ago, th3s0n1c said:

Well.. there's a reason why they are called "direwolves". But fine, despite the fact that a moderator that keeps in close touch with TFP staff said they are prehistorical (and never once actually said in his original statement that it was just his headcanon but not the actual canon).. lets go with a mutation theory.

Apologies. It was just my head canon mixed with a touch of Journey to the Center of the Earth.

[th3s0n1c]

1 hour ago, Roland said:

the time for completely reworking things is over. Add an ability to an existing entity? Fine. Rework it into some kind of new entity? Doubtful at this point.

Isnt that what this thread is mostly talking about? Adding a new behavior/ability to the wolves?

Its not completely rewoking it into a new entity.. I did say that just turning the direwolf into a zombie, would be enough for me.

[Roland]

2 minutes ago, th3s0n1c said:

I did say that just turning the direwolf into a zombie, would be enough for me.

I see what you are saying now. Turn the direwolf into a zombie wolf. I thought you wanted to cut the wolf and add another humanoid zombie to replace it. I don't care if it is a dire wolf or a zombie wolf. Leave it a dire wolf since it already is one is my vote. But give it rotten meat and call it a zombie wolf? Fine by me.

[th3s0n1c]

33 minutes ago, Roland said:

I thought you wanted to cut the wolf and add another humanoid zombie to replace it

Nah.. who would want that? Lol

I mean, if we cant have wolves acting more like wolves, at least we could have the direwolf be a little different than just another wolf.

[GlassDeviant]

Dire wolves are fine, except when I am level 1 (or thereabouts) and one comes upon me before I've set up a safer place to cower in pathetic terror through the night.

 

I'd love to see even more critters, what do you even need a reason or rationale for them beyond "they're cool"? Maybe radiation turned regular wolves into something resembling the prehistoric dire wolves. Maybe wolves are immune to zerpies but it turns off whatever gene makes modern wolves small if they get it young enough. Whatever. Maybe we'll get 20 new types of critters by a20 or a23 or whatever. Great! Who cares? It's a zombie game. If it were realistic, it couldn't be a zombie game, cos they're not real and moreso can't be real.

 

If you don't like the default behaviours of the various critters & zombies, make a mod.

 

Additionally, I'd love even more zombie models. Not so much ones with different/extra powers, just for variety. I get the office tower that has almost entirely office drone zombies, but for the most part I'd like some more variety in my zombie slicing, dicing, pureeing, puncturing, smashing, bashing, sploding and crushing.