Animal Danger.

[amlaborde@windstream.net 94]

There are already animals in the game, but they mostly just stand around waiting for a harvest. What if they presented a danger to us? Like in games like Red Dead Redemption, or Assassins Creed 3. Animals like Bears, Hogs, Etc can attack when too close or in self defence.

What say you to this?

[Gaidoon 19]

Zombie Animals?

[Tassadarh 2]

No zombie animals plz... But I kinda agree on some kind of additional danger in the woods, like wolves or other hungry beasts... The hell a boar killed Robert Baratheon, why it shouldn't kill me?

[amlaborde@windstream.net 94]

Snakes could be a danger too.

[Existential 1]

Wolves, please! It's not unreasonable to think that wolves would multiply and encroach on civilization in the aftermath of a zombie apocalypse.

Wolves that were scared off by fires and gunshots would be realistic and create an interesting dynamic, as those are the very things that might alert other players to your location.

Ideally, the wolves would have some ability to stalk players, following their recent paths. The wolves don't need to come in huge packs (though maybe they could on the wilder edges of the map). They just need to give us a reason to keep checking over our shoulders in the woods, which for now are much too safe.

[amlaborde@windstream.net 94]

Yeah, a CONSTANT danger would give this game a spark that no other has. The forests are pretty much an unintended safe zone... We only encounter somebody there rarely, and never see a zombie.

[dale0404 16]

Slightly off topic but I think the forested areas and areas away from buildings etc are too safe, need to up the feeling of surviving.

[Strategos (DayZ) 190]

This has been suggested a few times before.

[amlaborde@windstream.net 94]

Well, did not show up on the search bar for me.

[S A K E D 9]

Forests need more danger I agree

[haviv[3rdid] 57]

Also, get rid of cows and sheep. There's no civilization and no domestication. If you want food, you will have to learn how to hunt wild animals.

[Existential 1]

That all depends on how soon after the apocalypse this game is supposed to take place. (Is there Word of God on that?) Feral livestock ought to be around in the immediate weeks and months, for sure.

Timing also figures into what kind of dangers would be inhabiting the forests:

Weeks and months after? Probably just feral dogs and maybe a rare wolf or bear.

Decades after? Probably more abundant wolves, bears, and a resourceful breed of mutt descended from the feral dog population. Those dingos'll eat your babies for sure.

[xeaglenec 13]

Bears, snakes, wolfs, bees... there is a lot of dangerous animals that could be added to the forests. +1

[zak757 146]

ARMA II has tons of animals (you can even play them in the armory), but none of them attack you. Even wild boars don't.

[_Profile_Shame 37]

this has been suggested so many times, because its sorely needed..

"Yeah, a CONSTANT danger would give this game a spark that no other has. "

exactly this. there needs to be something lurking around the forest at all times so you can never really be off guard

[patluk@sasktel.net 1]

+1 for fucking ZOMBIE BEARS! You would need a lot more than one .45 long from a winny to drop an 800 lb infected bear coming at you. A Makaraov should probably not even be able to stop it.

[amlaborde@windstream.net 94]

The Makarov would just piss it all the way off.

[A Man Named GOB 1]

Can we get a mutha fuckin Honey Badger?

[kloust! 0]

+1 support

[Insaniac (DayZ) 235]

I agree with animals that are naturally territorial or hostile, not infected animals since it would add a somewhat cliché feel to what could be a decent feature, for me at least.