Why tho? What's even the point of introducing direwolves into the game? It doesnt make sense to me to add a prehistoric animal into the game just for the sake of it.Because they aren't zombie wolves. If they were they would be called zombie wolves. Direwolves are prehistoric wolves much like the sabertooth lion. I suppose they always existed undiscovered in the some remote cutoff prestine biome of the Arizona mountains that became exposed due to the cataclysmic events of the apocalypse and they are now seeping into and spreading over the world once again....
Simple. To EAT YOUR FACE!Why tho? What's even the point of introducing direwolves into the game
Because zombies, bears and regular wolves dont already try to do that, right?Simple. To EAT YOUR FACE!![]()
What is your point? The dire wolves are not being introduced. They are already in and there is nothing wrong with having a bigger and stronger version of an enemy. If TFP was still planning to implement direwolves in the future then your feedback would make sense. But cut them from the game? What would that serve?Why tho? What's even the point of introducing direwolves into the game? It doesnt make sense to me to add a prehistoric animal into the game just for the sake of it.
You were just talking about variety and not having one entity repeating the same behavior as another and, yet, here we have an animal that is exactly just like another animal.. so much so that it is actually the same animal.. just bigger and stronger.
Exactly.... who even says that they are prehistoric wolves? Maybe they're mutated normal wolves that survivors decided to call dire wolves?Let's pretend they have been cut and they are just a larger wolf. Done
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?What is your point? The dire wolves are not being introduced. They are already in and there is nothing wrong with having a bigger and stronger version of an enemy. If TFP was still planning to implement direwolves in the future then your feedback would make sense. But cut them from the game? What would that serve?
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.If you just feel like criticizing what TFP chose to do a couple years ago and want to talk about what they should have done instead, I guess that could be entertaining, but not super helpful going forward. It's water under the bridge.
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.'m not the one who was talking about needing variety anyway
Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm saying maybe they're NOT prehistoric animals.... just that survivors called them that.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?
If they were added to the game 'just because it would be cool having a sort of mythical monster", we could be getting vampires, harpies, dragons... or even more "realistical ones" like anacondas, huge alligators, idk, you name it.Maybe you misunderstood me. I'm saying maybe they're NOT prehistoric animals.... just that survivors called them that.
And as to whats the point of more difficult wolves? You might as well ask whats the point of more difficult zombies.... to provide a challenge.
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.If they were added to the game 'just because it would be cool having a sort of mythical monster", we could be getting vampires, harpies, dragons... or even more "realistical ones" like anacondas, huge alligators, idk, you name it.
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).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.
Because TFP don't want them? Or haven't got to them yet? Who knows?So, once again, why arent there any mutated (harder versions) of snakes, coyotes, stags, chickens, mountain lions and rabbits?
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.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.
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.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).
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.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.
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.
Apologies. It was just my head canon mixed with a touch of Journey to the Center of the Earth.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.
Isnt that what this thread is mostly talking about? Adding a new behavior/ability to the wolves?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 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.I did say that just turning the direwolf into a zombie, would be enough for me.
Nah.. who would want that? LolI thought you wanted to cut the wolf and add another humanoid zombie to replace it