Please don't introduce humans as battle-able enemies
|
Posted 2021-07-30 07:08:08
I dont mind the nods towards humans existing like collared dogs, signs of civilization, etc, but id prefer if we just kept humans out of it. Maybe a passive interaction, but nothing more than that, please. |
 ππFaerie #41640 |
|
Posted 2021-07-30 07:13:05
If people are supposed to be added to the game, maybe it could be added as an ancounter of sorts, as a compromise. But I don't think having them as a battle encounter is the right step. |
 Mima #6900 |
|
Posted 2021-07-31 15:39:02
I prefer to fight humans in game, because it feels like i'm fighting off poachers. I know this makes you upset, but if the majority of the people in game voted for it. Then that's it. You can just bypass the option to fight them, which to me seems like some people ignore that point in this discussion. And on one of the death notification says your pup was killed by a human trap, so saying you don't want humans in game when they can kill your pup makes your argument weak. One last thing, some people want their lore revolved around saving their pack from poachers or being released to help the wolf population. |
Forgotten #9694 |
|
Posted 2021-07-31 16:03:13
I'm not against human presence - it's already here. And battleable humans - sure, I guess, but would be nice to have an option to not even see them, if one prefers to. People have been bringing up points that are important to them. Just because they're not important to you, doesn't make "their argument weak". There's no need for a "battle" of "yes or no". I do appreciate the mention about pack lore, it's a good point. |
 Ihmislehma #1850 |
|
Posted 2021-07-31 16:09:29
Yes, people bring up their experience is not weak. But what i'm getting at is if their is human traps already in the game killing your pups, then trying to get rid of humans just dosent make sense to me. They may not like it, but still the majority of the people on this site voted for it. Instead you can make positive and negative experience for players as a middle ground. |
Forgotten #9694 |
|
Posted 2021-07-31 16:18:06
Honestly, I don't expect my aversion to the idea of having to battle humans deterring anything possibly being created, but I still want to say that I do not like it. Personally I'd like to have non-battle encounters over battle encounters, when it comes to humans. And I'm absolutely against a month-long event of specifically battling humans (as this has also been brought up by commenters). |
Ihmislehma #1850 |
|
Posted 2021-08-01 17:54:29
|
 π απΊπ³π₯πΈπΆππ§ π #27999 |
|
Posted 2021-08-02 06:48:25
Battle encounters, however, are impossible to ignore, and just flat out do not feel right considering how wolves do not really fight humans at all unless something is very, VERY wrong. Just take a look at Voyageur's Wolf Project in Voyageur's National Park, as an example. The researchers for Voyageur's are literally able to pull wolf pups from the dens to health check, weigh them, and even tag them - all while the adult wolves of the pack are hidden nearby in the forest undergrowth. The knowledge of that and seeing photos of people literally sticking out of those cramped little dens and holding pups with no danger from parents that are often lurking nearby out of sight just really makes "humans as a battle encounter" feel wrong and gross and just flat out not right to me. Wolvden is a game filled with fantasy, but "battling humans" is not a 'fantasy' I'd want to see at all. Again, I would not mind battle encounters caused or connected to humans (hunting dogs or herding dogs), but I do not want to actively be attacking or fighting a human being. I would much rather see non-violent/passive encounters involving humans - like seeing an animal caught in a trap and having the option to help it or capitalize on its misfortune, running into trail cams or camp sites for items, or being able to strike a pose or run away from humans you see in a distance (like observers in National Parks like Yellowstone). It's just a bad taste in my mouth - I would take and do not care about anything else, but I would really rather not see a single human being being the target I have to damage in a battle encounter. |
 otterbells #4284 |
|
Posted 2021-08-12 11:53:28
Even if they were added- it's not like you're forced to fight them. Just keep exploring. I'd expect theyd be uncommon anyway. Pretending humans dont exist just seems kind of odd but it would also be odd not to give us the option to attack them. |
Pixality #1157 |
|
Posted 2021-08-12 20:12:44
I understand the point you are trying to make. My problem is that any of those issues could be applied to carcasses/animals/encounters already in the game. As far as I know, wolves aren't well known for killing humans. They are well known for killing livestock, yet we have livestock carcasses in the game. It seems to me like the livestock carcasses would contribute more to any "negative stigma" because that is usually where they come into conflict with humans. I also doubt Wolvden is quite so influential. Even if it was, this post is making a pretty big leap in the hypothetical situation presented. I would agree with human encounters having a passive and an attack option so that people can still gain from finding the encounter if they dont want to fight them. I just have a problem with restricting a ton of other users on the site for a seemingly unlikely hypothetical situation when there is already an equitable solution- don't fight them. Consider a similar hypothetical below: Maybe I have something against healing salves because I don't want wolves being associated with witchcraft. Instead of just not collecting the healing salves, I want the rest of the site to be unable to find them too. Maybe I think dressing animals up is animal abuse and don't want images circulating making it look fun, especially the more gory ones. We better scrap the decor. How much of the custom decor is contributing to the "negative stigma"? I could go on with things very similar to things I have actually heard acquaintances in my life say about other things. If we take out every benign thing that someone MIGHT have a problem with there won't be a game left. I can assure you the hunters don't care about "negative stigma". Hunters will hunt them, regardless of any "negative stigma" as OP provided evidence for in the initial post. And ranchers don't care either except for any "negative stigma" associated with killing livestock, which has nothing to do with having human trophies. I doubt they'd even be in a circle they could see a wolvden meme but even if they did, what impact would it have on people who already have an interest in killing wolves for other reasons? It doesn't solve the problem it is intending to provide a solution for while simultaneously disallowing a feature that many other users have expressed interest in. |
Pixality #1157 |