Wildlife realism

[razab]

Since wildlife is a planned feature for future builds, I'd like to make two remarks about it. What triggered me for writing this post are various ideas/suggestions related to PZ and animals posted here on the TIS forum and elsewhere in the web.

 

1. WOLVES: I've seen various posts which among other things suggest that the devs should add wolves to the game. Problem: There are no wolves in present day (including early 90s) Kentucky. Historically they were present in Kentucky but have long been extinct there by now. As a compromise, wolves could be introduced after a certain amount of in-game time like after several months or even years. This might be in accordance with the idea that after civilization collapse and the lack of humans, nature slowly becomes more diverse and animals "claim back" their old habitat.

 

Speaking of large predators which could potentially be a threat to humans, there is only one type which is present in current day Kentucky: bears (more precisely: black bears). I am not sure about their population in the early 90s and I am not sure whether they can also be found in the Muldraugh/Louisville area where the game takes place but I think adding them would not be completely against reality as it is the case for wolves.

 

Thinking about "dangerous" animals which could potentially be a threat to humans brings me to my second remark:

 

2. DANGER OF WILDLIFE TO HUMANS: A lot of posts suggest that predators could serve as a new type of enemy to the player besides the zeds. It is a common trope in video games that predators like wolves or bears attack any human player on sight and it is understandable from a game design perspective that they do so (for variety of enemies). However, even for larger predators like bears this is a rather unrealistic behavior. Besides a few exceptions, most predators are quite shy and try to avoid humans. This also applies to bears (and even more to wolves). To get an idea of how rare such an attack is, you might check the Wikipedia article "List of fatal bear attacks in North America" and a similar one for wolves. The black bear for example has roughly between 0 and 2 fatal attacks per year in North America (US and Canada). Since a strong point of Zomboid is realism (except for zombies ofc) and since I think this realism should also apply to the depiction of wildlife, my suggestion here is that the rarity of animal attacks should be taken care of when introducing animals. Instead of making it so that the woods are full of bears (and maybe wolves) which constantly attack the player on sight, it might be closer to reality if those animals are rather seldom and when a player encounters them, the probability of an attack should be very, very low. In most cases, they should simply run away.

[Papa Juliet Whiskey]

They could also provide a hunting opportunity for players as we'll. And like in real life, they'll likely flee if attacked.

 

In so far as wolves are concerned, I do like the idea that they'd eventually repopulate areas after some amount of time has passed. Don't know how long that time should ultimately be, as I don't know where wolf populations aren't presently,  or in 93 for that matter.

 

They could also add an extra layer of immersion if they do show up by shadowing player groups, looking for food scraps and such, and perhaps attacking occasionally if starved enough. That's pretty much how dogs became a thing, so no reason not to emulate that to a degree.

 

Maybe even lure zeds closer to player camps, or potentially alerting players to incoming hordes by howling a bunch, or just going totally quiet and fleeing the area(not sure how wolves would respond to the undead, treat them like any other player character, or attack and/or flee the zeds )

[NachoNinjaGnome]

Realistically, wolves might begin to treat zombies as a potential food source.  In a zombie apocalypse scenario, such as PZ, where the zombies are , relatively, slow moving, animal populations would being to increase as the wilderness began to reclaim the Earth.  Early on, wolves would treat zombies as they currently treat humans, for the most part, and observe from a distance but run away if approached, which a zombie would do if it spotted a wolf.  Then, as time goes on, zombie populations decrease, survivor populations decrease and wolf populations increase.  Slowly, but surely, the wolves would see lone zombies as an easy meal and a necessary kill, as they would also be seen as competition for local game.  Wolves don't tend to tolerate other predators in their territory.

[Irken Empire]

I really like that you pointed out the unrealistic behaviour of predators in video games, in 7 Days to Die even non zombie bears and wolves turn hostile when you're 10m away from them, that's stupid ,but okay-ish since it's a 3D grind game with respawning and no progress loss, so no matter how many times it killed you it'll still have valuable loot and it'll be worth it anyway.

[duh7]

https://a-z-animals.com/animals/location/north-america/united-states/kentucky/

Yep i hope they implemented animals right.  Im most interest in opposums and skunks.

[Goldkat]

Simple, have bears and wolves try to steal food and attack you if you try and stop them. There is a reason why you don't leave food laying around when camping. It's realistic because these animals aren't randomly trying to kill you but its also a threat that can be mitigated with some infrastructure just like zombies. Maybe even have animals making dens in buildings, so that they "Guard" the "Loot" inside. Having a bear living in that abandoned hardware store you really want to break into adds some risk vs reward game play and makes the world feel lived in.

 

Also you could just let them eat your food, no fight required.

Edited July 13, 2022 by Goldkat

[MrTrololo]

On 3/24/2022 at 2:22 PM, NachoNinjaGnome said:

Realistically, wolves might begin to treat zombies as a potential food source.  In a zombie apocalypse scenario, such as PZ, where the zombies are , relatively, slow moving, animal populations would being to increase as the wilderness began to reclaim the Earth.  Early on, wolves would treat zombies as they currently treat humans, for the most part, and observe from a distance but run away if approached, which a zombie would do if it spotted a wolf.  Then, as time goes on, zombie populations decrease, survivor populations decrease and wolf populations increase.  Slowly, but surely, the wolves would see lone zombies as an easy meal and a necessary kill, as they would also be seen as competition for local game.  Wolves don't tend to tolerate other predators in their territory.

they would attack zombies of course, but lets not forget wolves ale carnivorous not scavengers so i dont think they would want to eat their rotten meat

[Bullet_Magnate]

On 3/23/2022 at 2:55 PM, razab said:

There are no wolves in present day (including early 90s) Kentucky. . . .  [W]olves could be introduced after a certain amount of in-game time like after several months or even years. 

 

Speaking of large predators which could potentially be a threat to humans, there is only one type which is present in current day Kentucky: bears (more precisely: black bears).

 

It is a common trope in video games that predators like wolves or bears attack any human player on sight and it is understandable from a game design perspective that they do so (for variety of enemies). However, even for larger predators like bears this is a rather unrealistic behavior. Besides a few exceptions, most predators are quite shy and try to avoid humans. 

 

This is GREAT input, absolutely spot on.  Agree with comments above that large predators *should* factor in more as a hunting opportunity than an actual threat. 

 

There is one other dangerous form of wildlife that might be interesting to include:  venomous snakes, of which there are four types in Kentucky.  

 

I can easily see survivors running afoul of poisonous snakes, especially if they are spending lots of time in the boonies to avoid zed-infested areas.  They would pose a real danger, too, with no readily available modern medicine to treat bites.  

 

Seems like it might be good to have robust sandbox options for those who want action (i.e., more, and more aggressive, predators) over realism, but realism should be the default.  

 

Another thought:  could the Knox Virus have some effect on certain animals, increasing their aggression (similar to rabies)?  

 

*** EDIT / CORRECTION:  Apparently one of the snake types linked above (the pigmy rattlesnake) is NOT found in the part of Kentucky where PZ takes place.   So, that's 3, not 4, types of venomous snake that could appear in-game. 

 

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Bullet_Magnate
Fixing Typos / Clarifying

[vek]

On 3/23/2022 at 11:55 PM, razab said:

1. WOLVES: I've seen various posts which among other things suggest that the devs should add wolves to the game. Problem: There are no wolves in present day (including early 90s) Kentucky. Historically they were present in Kentucky but have long been extinct there by now. As a compromise, wolves could be introduced after a certain amount of in-game time like after several months or even years. This might be in accordance with the idea that after civilization collapse and the lack of humans, nature slowly becomes more diverse and animals "claim back" their old habitat.

 

Speaking of large predators which could potentially be a threat to humans, there is only one type which is present in current day Kentucky: bears (more precisely: black bears). I am not sure about their population in the early 90s and I am not sure whether they can also be found in the Muldraugh/Louisville area where the game takes place but I think adding them would not be completely against reality as it is the case for wolves.

If there were no wolves in the area before, then they will not appear there quickly, because they need to migrate from afar.
But ...
There are a large number of dogs in cities and on farms. And if the small ones can be neglected, then the big ones will quickly get together in packs and will pose a danger to a single person no less than a pack of wolves. Especially after a while, when they go wild. And they go wild quickly. In game reality, you can make the appearance and danger of packs of dogs as a configurable parameter (a month, three months, six months, a year since the beginning of the apocalypse).

 

On 3/23/2022 at 11:55 PM, razab said:

The black bear for example has roughly between 0 and 2 fatal attacks per year in North America (US and Canada).

Yes, and how often do dogs attack people? It seems to me that much more often. Simply because a person encounters them much more often.

[Bullet_Magnate]

7 hours ago, vek said:

Yes, and how often do dogs attack people? It seems to me that much more often. Simply because a person encounters them much more often.

 

This is a great point.  I could easily see packs of hungry, wild dogs roaming Knox County in a matter of weeks (if not days) after the Event. 

 

Also, I want to say I read somewhere that wild dogs are potentially even more dangerous than wolves, because they don't have any natural aversion to contact with people ... 

 

EDIT:  I want to say there is something in the lore / radio broadcasts about the military culling / shooting dogs in the area as part of their efforts to control the Knox Fever outbreak.  That could justify limiting the number of wild dogs in the early game.  

 

EDIT 2:  Found something, but it might be an isolated occurrence.  

 

Edited July 27, 2022 by Bullet_Magnate

[Darkmark8910]

Pardon my resurrecting this post from the grave. 

 

Dog & Coyote Survival: It's likely most dog breeds would fare terribly in the short-term. The more aggressive and the more friendly the dog, the less likely it'd survive. Aggressive dogs who threaten to attack humans would likely end up biting a zombie - this would probably not end well for the dog. Friendly animals that run up to their zombified owners or flee to the nearest uninfected human and bark in alarm would also not fare well. So any remaining dogs would be cowardly and skittish, not to mention traumatized. Chances are there wouldn't be many hunting dogs left as they're more aggressive & more friendly. Dogs would likely be scavengers at first, eating off food scraps, which could also cause problems - that dead zombie isn't good eating, Fido! Maybe their noses would keep them away? 

 

Long-term, dogs would become much more like coyotes than like the "family dog" or "hunting dog" or "attack dog" we think of - chances are they'd interbreed with coyotes so that within a few generations, coyotes start to have different colored coats. Small dogs would be especially troubled - bulldogs can't even give birth without veterinary assistance. Coyotes, unlike dogs, would be perfectly-fine in the apocalypse, so their numbers would be much more equal. You could *schmaybe* train a coyote-dog like a normal dog. I don't know though, I'm no dog expert. 

 

Cat Survival: Cats would fare extremely well at first and long-term. Cats are not known for walking up to their owners and not known for attacking humans, while also typically being adapted to the outdoors. Hundreds of cats survived for *years* in Aleppo, Syria, years after the bombs dropped & most everyone left. They'd need to hunt for themselves long-term, but they could do so. Cats can and will scavenge off dead creatures as well as hunt for small mammals & birds. Their problem may be more about their medium-term food supply - if they went after a rat that had eaten off a zombie, that wouldn't be great for that cat, same as it wouldn't be great for a dog or coyote. 

 

Long-term, the huge increase in foliage and huge decrease in commercial pest-killers would make a lot more small animals breed in droves, which would help cats immensely. Cats are the only animal to have self-domesticated, so they'd also probably continue being almost the exact same as they are now, except they'd all be outdoor cats and would probably like hanging indoors near the fireplace more in winter with humans.