More danger in the pine forest and burnt forest

Adam the Waster

Adam the Waster

Well-known member
The burnt forest has coyotes hogs, deer rabbits chickens rattlesnakes and vultures there should be bears, and maybe rarely zombie dogs and wolves or even packs of coyotes 

The pine forest has deer, rabbits, chickens snakes and that's it. 

The pine forest should have more like the new pig and at night hogs that are hostile.  

Wolfs and coyotes at night and very rarely bears. Maybe just small bears but still more life in the biome with the most amount of life is better then it is now

Also the desert should have deer. Deer in the desert are real so....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don’t know I kind of like the chillin nature of animals in the forest biome and making hunting trips to the other biomes. One reason to venture out. Maybe some wolves at night would be cool.

 
Although I did like the variety in the forest in earlier alphas, it's clear that they want the forest to be the "n00b" zone.  ;)

I made a bear den that spawns in the forest just to get some bears occasionally to be there without making them a normal spawn.  It gives a nice change.  And you can mod in bears as well if you want to go that route.  But I wouldn't expect bears to make a return to the forest in vanilla.  Maybe hogs.

 
If anything, they should just be scaling animal spawns with the players progression. I get that the forest is intended to be a noob zone, but at some point, it would be nice if more difficult animals like wolves (not dire) and bears (not zombie) started spawning.

 
Riamus said:
Although I did like the variety in the forest in earlier alphas, it's clear that they want the forest to be the "n00b" zone.  ;)

I made a bear den that spawns in the forest just to get some bears occasionally to be there without making them a normal spawn.  It gives a nice change.  And you can mod in bears as well if you want to go that route.  But I wouldn't expect bears to make a return to the forest in vanilla.  Maybe hogs.
Click to expand...
But it's such a nice looking biome it should have some more danger at night for later players 

 
Syphon583 said:
If anything, they should just be scaling animal spawns with the players progression. I get that the forest is intended to be a noob zone, but at some point, it would be nice if more difficult animals like wolves (not dire) and bears (not zombie) started spawning.
Click to expand...
You're talking about a circle of life ecology. I did something like that before, I had

all predators chase and kill all prey, but i also had the buzzards attack everything

on sight. They don't anymore.  I miss that part. But now I just use forest for hunting

before i move on to other areas. So yeah, it's become a beginners area. "in vanilla"😉

 
4sheetzngeegles said:
You're talking about a circle of life ecology. I did something like that before, I had

all predators chase and kill all prey, but i also had the buzzards attack everything

on sight. They don't anymore.  I miss that part. But now I just use forest for hunting

before i move on to other areas. So yeah, it's become a beginners area. "in vanilla"😉
Click to expand...


I did see a wolf chasing a deer the other day, so predator animals, at least wolves, do go after non-predators still.

Wasn't something I was expecting to see, but damn was it cool.

 
This is really a request about game progression, and that's really difficult to do in any "sandbox" game.

Players must start in a relatively easy state (zone, game stage, whatever). If they don't they'll just get killed all the time and leave the game. But there has to be some kind of progression so that players still feel challenged as they gain more power.

If the game difficulty depends upon biome, this is difficult to do. Players start in an easy biome so they don't quit, but once they master that biome they need a reason to go to the next one.

What you're asking for is essentially to do away with the forest biome being the easy biome, and making it more difficult. But that's what the other biomes are for.

The mere fact that you are asking it should be a message to the devs that they are not doing biome progression properly. If they were, then it wouldn't matter that the forest biome is easy, because players wouldn't even be in it by the time they are powerful enough to not be killed in it.

So the real question to the devs is this: Why aren't you giving us good reasons to abandon the pine forest when we're powerful enough to go into different biomes?

It's not an easy question to answer. If anyone has ideas I'm all for it, even if the devs don't like it then maybe a modder will.

EDIT: And the answer probably can't be "because you'll get better weapons" because the only reason they would need better weapons is if they leave the easy biome. No leaving the easy biome, no need for better weapons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
khzmusik said:
devs...are not doing biome progression properly. If they were, then it wouldn't matter that the forest biome is easy, because players wouldn't even be in it by the time they are powerful enough to not be killed in it.
Click to expand...
I must admit I don't get this community's insistence that players must leave or be "forced to leave" the Forest (or any other) biome in favor of more hellish pastures. None of the biomes are the wrong biome to be in if that's where player wants to be. There is already incentive to visit the other biomes (loot stages, tougher enemies, unique resources, ambience, etc.) whether the player decides to set up permanent camp in the Forest biome or not. "Progression" of danger and challenge is built into the maps. Is not the new "trader progression" through the biomes artificial enough? What does this community have against player agency that it is constantly arguing for player agency to be removed?

 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Old Crow said:
Like a human zombie? Nice! My buddy and I did see a pair of direwolves in the forest today chasing down a wolf. My buddy peeled one off, but the other one got to the wolf. Ah well, free meat and red bags!
Click to expand...
I'll see if I can post it I recorded it and I was Like wtf

 
Saw a direwolf in the downtown of a fairly decent sized Forest biome town. Gasp! Sh..! (Using the mod that allows larger and big cities to still be rendered in the Forest biome.)

It wasn't chasing anything...yet. Pretty sure it was going to chase me if it got wind of me, though.

 

 
Forest is basically the new progressive form of the plains, it just has
more visuals because of the trees, pois, wildlife, etc. I mean it provides
a bit of the same feeling, but with pluses.

Every once in a while a bit of variety might be interesting. For example,
<property name="day" value="*" /> with the addition of an operator equation,
attached to the spawn groups can create a round robin smattering of variable
spawns.

When you turn off or hyper extend hordenight days to the future that's exactly
what it feels like. No rush no fuss. I do like the everything live fights
everything dead setup though. It makes it feel like a living environment, for me.

Watching wolves chase the rabbits, is a trip. I would like the wild vultures to
return to the former attack pattern, and attack the rabbits chickens wolves and
bears. Just to watch it. And get some feathers.

But not so much as to ruin it for someone just starting.

 
InfiniteWarrior said:
I must admit I don't get this community's insistence that players must leave or be "forced to leave" the Forest (or any other) biome in favor of more hellish pastures. None of the biomes are the wrong biome to be in if that's where player wants to be. There is already incentive to visit the other biomes (loot stages, tougher enemies, unique resources, ambience, etc.) whether the player decides to set up permanent camp in the Forest biome or not. "Progression" of danger and challenge is built into the maps. Is not the new "trader progression" through the biomes artificial enough? What does this community have against player agency that it is constantly arguing for player agency to be removed?

 
Click to expand...


I'm not sure if this was a response to my post. But if it was - then I wasn't arguing against player choice. I was arguing that if biome progression was handled in an ideal way, then players will want to move to "harder" biomes as the game progresses. It's not about being "forced," it's about offering incentives.

At the moment, though, it's almost the opposite. What reason does the game give to leave the forest biome? Well, yes, Trader Rekt, I suppose. But the things you mentioned (loot stages, tougher enemies, resources, ambience, etc.) all go against moving out of the forest biome.

Loot stages don't matter if you don't need better loot (which you don't need if you don't move biomes). Tougher enemies are things to avoid in a survival game. Unique resources, maybe, but the only biome that really has unique resources is the desert biome (oil shale) and it's not the "final" biome. And as far as ambience is concerned, you already start in the biome with the "best" (prettiest/most peaceful) ambience.

I think it would be much better if players started in the wasteland, which would be the easiest biome (because it destroyed nearly everything including enemies), but has the least usable resources and you ended up progressing to the forest biome, which would be the most difficult biome of all (since it's the "paradise" that everything wants to go to) but also contains the resources that you need (like goldenrod or chrysanthemum for teas, deer for meat, iron nodes, etc.).

EDIT: but the fact that many players would object to this, and prefer things as they are now, shows just how difficult it is to do this effectively. I've yet to see a survival game do it, to be honest. Games like Subnautica have exactly the same issue.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
khzmusik said:
players will want to move
Click to expand...
Are you everyone's spokesperson? Somehow, I don't think so. Do you honestly think "incentives" of any kind are going to affect where a player does and does not want to be and what a player does and does not want to do? If a player wants to take up residence in the Forest or any other biome in the game as-is, they can and that's how it should be. Do you think they should be locked into moving from place to place as the "trader progression" route through the biomes supposedly "incentivizes" players to do now? (I'm one among many who think biome-locking the traders in 1.0 was a terrible idea. TFP disagrees, obviously, so I wouldn't argue for them to change it back if that's what they want to do with their game, but removing the "random" from RWG kind of defeats the purpose of RWG from my perspective.)

khzmusik said:
Games like Subnautica have exactly the same issue.
Click to expand...
Do they? Is that why people are choosing different biomes and locations in Subnautica each playthrough to set up their permanent habitats and/or building smaller "research facilities" and thermal plants and resource scanning sites wherever they wish? Because that's what they're doing. I built in the grassy plain in my initial playthrough. Another save contains my habitat design for the Bulb Zone. If I play through it again, I may put a thermal-powered scanning station in the Giant Tree Cove and build a habitat somewhere above it. I have that freedom to do what I wish. It's the lore of Subnautica that takes players on a tour of the map. 7DTD's forthcoming story mode may or may not do the same, but I'd guess that it will.

PS - This is not really player agency so much as player autonomy. Agency would be the ability to change the game world and/or a game's storyline(s), i.e. a RPG, in drastic ways.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
My problem is I like to look at the Pine Forest but I want the challenge of another biome like I want the the dangers in the the cities

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top