#New Species DLCs

1 messages · Page 1 of 1 (latest)

rustic zinc
#

I think the time has come to talk seriously about this problem and define once and for all "What we are willing to accept."
We all want new animals on existing maps, either for pleasure or because they are representative animals of the region or because they are missing game animals.
Throughout all this time the studio has shown us some aspects of how they work or how they design or decide to design, at this point we already know that each content that is added to the game requires a lot of design time and financial resources to complete it. ..
Taking into account the recent increase in the cost of future DLCs, we are increasingly further away from having New Species for Free (Personally I think it was never possible), So what would the community be willing to accept in exchange for having them?

1_ Would you be willing to pay for a New Species DLC for existing maps? How many species could I include in it 3, 4, 5?
(In this case the new species would only appear on the maps of those who have paid for them)

2_Would you be willing to pay a little more for each DLC in the future and only add 1 or 2 species each time?
(In this case the new species will be added for all players regardless of whether they have purchased the DLC or not)

3_What other option do you propose? (taking into account that you have to pay for each new content)

hunting-license.png
#

Let us also take into account that the populations of the New Species will subtract quantities from the already existing populations as they have already clarified on numerous occasions.

honest fern
#

If they make it work out I think 5 species (new) for each map for $/€/£ 5~ would be good

rustic zinc
#

bump

shut terrace
#

I agree. With all the "rework" and "backfill" requests on here combined with the complaints about the new and slightly increased DLC map pricing, we cannot expect more and more content without paying for it.

And with some people wanting more big game, others more dangerous game, others want moose or deer species added... I'd like to see more birds, small game, or varmint content. I bet there's even more "specializations" out there.

We should definitely be prepared to accept this won't always just be added for free.

That being said, I'd be happy with @honest fern 's suggested 1 €/$/£ - ish price per animal.
I'd just like the option to get each species separately. I'd rather have my preferred class 1 and 2 animals without having to pay for a bundle of animals which include some I might not be interested in at all. This bugs me already when it comes to the weapons DLC's.

honest fern
shut terrace
#

Yes, I got that. Just wanted too add to it. 😉

#

I just don't like having to pay for bundles of stuff with items in the bundle for which I know I'd never use.

rustic zinc
#

and to give the economic issue a little more seriousness....

Zl3Bo6WtHYXtUBz0_Websiteupdate.jpg
lament star
#

i would be open to even pay for already existing species getting added to the maps (but maybe then only half of @honest fern price per species )

junior forum
#
  1. No. This is unworkable for reasons that are so obvious that I can't be bothered getting into (or arguing over).
  2. Yes. Happy for EW to increase the cost of all future content (not just maps) if it includes a couple of backfills and remasters.
  3. See no. 2.
honest fern
pearl cairn
#

Unless you envision the new species only being available in single player (and the maps they're on) to the person who paid for them, this is impossible. Unlike a DLC gun that only the player can use, any new species would naturally have to be available to everyone (paid or not) or multiplayer will not work. This is why new animals added to old maps have always been free.

honest fern
rustic zinc
#

The DLC animals are still available for base players in multiplayer mode, I don't see a problem with them working the same way.
Another possibility is to add the "Invalid Target" system, similar to that of Classis, something similar is already in the game when one tries to shoot a dog...

We must find a solution since it has been almost 4 years since the last time a new animal was added to existing maps.

rustic zinc
rustic zinc
#

bump

junior forum
#

I could write an essay on why this wouldn't work and would be a massive fail for EW, causing a backlash worse than the bear pop reset fiasco. Unfortunately, I don't have time today to get into a back and forth but I have discussed many of my reasons on your 'NPC' animal thread and the map seasons thread, as well as on Janny's thread yesterday.
So far, I have seen two proposals which I'll give my underlying thoughts on.

  1. Separate Species+ maps which would have completely different home-ranges and populations as the standard maps but still using the standard map's template. This would require significant adjustments to the current engine and then it would have to be compatible in multiplayer which is already severely broken on platforms like Xbox. However they implement it, I can see it being fraught with bugs. It's too risky and I can't ever see them ever doing this. They'd be better off building a new game.
  2. No separate Species+ maps but the standard map will have DLC+ species that standard DLC users can see but cannot shoot or harvest ('invalid target'), significantly reducing their populations. Firstly, I did not pay for a DLC to have its population reduced. Secondly, there'll be no bigger driving force for me to quit the game permanently if I keep coming across animals that are invalid targets. Nope. Sod that.

One way of resolving number 1, that I think is an interesting idea, would be to create a season version of some maps, as discussed in the seasons thread, which would make it feel like a completely new map and fresh DLC.

#

For funding backfills on older maps, I propose a third option.
3. **Increase the price for all maps, including the old ones. **COTW provides some of the cheapest DLC expansion content out there. They could raise the price even higher than what they'll be asking going forward. There would be some initial backlash but they would recover from it quicker. However, they would need to improve the QOL of the whole game.

rustic zinc
#

In reality, the maps without Population+ would only have the new species with quantities =0, similar to what happened with the Canadian Geese for those who did not purchase the Wild Goose Chase Gear DLC during the first years

junior forum
#

EW keep saying that the populations are maxed out and the only way to add backfills is by reducing the current population. Players without population+ would have less animals. Unless population+ is a completely different map, something which I've already discussed above.

honest fern
junior forum
honest fern
#

You can change home ranges easily with animals Beeing only found on halve the map then the entire map you can add double the amount of species

junior forum
rustic zinc
#

At this point in the game I always forget that the Geese DLC exists, what do you think about having other similar DLCs?
Maybe the Sandhill Crane can be implemented in a couple of maps since they are all over NA, or what other multimap species could there be?
https://discord.com/channels/393040947006406657/1201398740905381998

In this case the Spawns are Conditional so the populations of other animals would not decrease 🤔

pearl cairn
rustic zinc
junior forum
#

What do the 'early' days have to do with now?

rustic zinc
junior forum
rustic zinc
#

Not exactly, I mean it's possible that we all have the same population file but the DLC animals don't spawn or their population is =0 for those who haven't purchased.
Similar to the goose DLC at its beginning

junior forum
#

I'm just messing. I know what you mean.
There would have been a legitimate reason why they didn't continue with that. I can't see them doing it now. Even if they did I'd still be against it and would quit the game for good. If they want to raise funds then they need to raise their prices. I can't see any other suggestion that I would accept.

rustic zinc
#

That is an option, they can still be hunted in the multiplayer rooms of those who have purchased the DLC

junior forum
#

The day that EW decides to make backfill species as separate paid-for DLC content will be the last day I play this game. Good luck to them trying to sell it to new players.

rustic zinc
#

But if they don't do it we will never have the species that everyone is asking for in the feedback, it won't happen for free, it hasn't happened for 4 years.

junior forum
#

Maybe I'm just not in that much of a hurry for the backfills. I can wait. I'd rather they fix some things and improve QOL, if I'm honest.

wicked river
#

I think EW has been making it pretty clear that they prefer to add new species to new maps. They want to make new maps instead of putting a new species on older maps. It sounds like they are not planning on stopping support for this game anytime soon.
I'm fine with getting new maps to add the missing species. It gives the game the opportunity to have a longer life as well. It's a reason to keep adding maps. They seem pretty against backfills for the most part from what I seen in the streams.
I think some people are just scared there want be that many maps left is why they are pushing the backfill issue.

#

Maybe they didn't add bird species because they have a bird heavy map planned for the future. We have no clue what their plans are but I'm assuming there was probably some strategy behind it.

junior forum
#

I get the same impression from the streams. Although, to be fair, I don't think it means they're ruling out backfills completely. Just not their main focus.

pearl cairn
# rustic zinc Correct but in the early years they had no need zone and it was almost impossibl...

That's also not true. They did land, and people did successfully shoot them on the ground, and of course flying overhead. It wasn't impossible, but it was a lot more work without the caller and decoys. Look for guides circa July 2018 and you will find many telling players how to hunt them without the DLC. (Of course they were hella broken too, and flew into the ground at the time.)

The more important point, however, is that EW has stated their policy is that any new animal additions to maps will be free to anyone that has those maps (again, they need to be or multiplayer will not work). If you want new species, you'll need to convince them to make a new map with those species.

rustic zinc
#

That was nowhere near comparing to grinding with DLC gear.

The problem with that policy is that we may have to wait until 2080 to get all of NA's game animals.
Right now the unanimous voice is "no more NA maps", so how many years must we wait from now to have another NA map containing the missing species that are in the feedback threads and how much longer after that map to have backfilling on other old maps?

With that policy, basically all requests for new species on old maps are a waste of time.
That's exactly why I made this thread, to look for viable options that the community accepts and we have new species in a reasonable time.

wicked river
#

I wouldn't say that voice is unanimous. Two of the top three upvoted maps are in NA. They could possibly even be the most upvoted if they spammed DMs, Chats and VCs like others. No offense just saying it could be possible. Technically we don't have to wait. All they have to do is choose to make one to get some of those animals.

I do get what you are saying though. You want to speed up the process.

mild kindle
rustic zinc
#

The most requested NA backfills have iconic species that only inhabit those maps, only a few are applicable within Layton, New England, Mississippi which are the most requested backfills.

Again, we usually only have 2 maps a year, last year we only had one, yet none of those new species that were included have been applied as backfill on a previous map, there are no plans or hints to do so.
Considering this, we are waiting years to "possibly" have a backfill of a new species, when instead we could have a DLC of new species applied to old maps by paying for it individually, at best, one pack in each update..

And I anticipate the "they're a small team, they can't do that much" statement, but if we pay full price for these New Species DLC maybe I can fund their development?

wicked river
#

Hopefully we get back to 2 per year. I would rather pay more money for a reserve to hopefully fund more maps. I really don't want a ton of backfills if I have to lose numbers of current species. I think the maps are to cheap compared to others companies. Raise the price and hire more staff if possible. May not work but that's what I would prefer.

junior forum
wicked river
#

What would you think of this option? They make 2 maps per year with one being a new location with new terrain, new species and some returning species that would be considered the show-stopper for the year that has a higher cost for this reserve.

Then the 2nd lesser priced map for the year they make a copy and paste type reserve that is sorta thrown together with mostly returning species but has a few new additions that couldn't make it on the previous map to avoid backfilling and ruining the show-stopper map.

junior forum
#

I think they've sort of tried this but people weren't happy. ie. NEM had no new species. Because people's appreciation of the maps is purely subjective, varying map prices would cause a lot of upset. It's the same reason why introducing Species+ DLCs would be a PR disaster. Nepal hasn't yet released and there are already threads on here complaining about the species list.

#

I think the only rational thing to do is to do backfiills but raise the price of all map DLCs.

wicked river
#

But they are saying they can't do backfills because performance issues and you will lose population numbers of current species. That just doesn't sound appealing to me.
The second map I was proposing wouldn't be like NEM because it would have some new species but it would be a copy and paste of terrain and plants.

junior forum
#

Hmmm. I don't know. Would people really pay for a duplicate map but with different species? I'm doubtful.

Going back to backfills. I don't recall them saying they can't do backfills though. They still do backfills but not often for several reasons such as time constraints, costs, and population resets which always upsets some people, to name a few. Backfills have to be carefully planned and balanced with everything else but it doesn't mean they don't and wont happen.

honest fern
junior forum
#

I would if they did a completely different season. Now that would interesting.

#

In that sense, I could see Bama's idea working.

honest fern
rustic zinc
wicked river
#

I would personally pay for it lol. What they said about backfills is that they can only have so many animals on a map because of performance issues.

When they add backfills they have to take away from current species numbers to allow for the backfill. When you do that the map possibly won't flow as good. I have heard the smaller home range argument but I would rather have a map like I was referring to than to have all my animals bunched up in a corner.

junior forum
#

If you rewrap your species+ idea as a new hunting season map then I'm definitely on board. But it has to be a completely separate map. Not an add on.

ionic harness
#

I personally think this type of DLC is too risky to put any time into for EW. They are seemingly in financial trouble and just closed two satellite studios and fired 50 people stating that it was 9% of overall workforce. I think we should be expecting a few quick and easy cosmetic and weapon packs that they know will sell. They will be going after guaranteed money over what ifs. New animals are nice but I would prefer them with a new map. The mobile style pay per animal doesn't sit well with me.

rustic zinc
#

Bump

rustic zinc
#

Bump

rustic zinc
#

Bump

main jackal
#

npjkpjhohio

rustic zinc
#

Bump

rustic zinc
#

Bump

rustic zinc
#

Bump

rustic zinc
#

bump

rustic zinc
#

bump

deft field
#

Perhaps only 'backfill' on older maps with species that come in on New DLCs. For exampe a new map has a new species that would also fit an existing map. In that situation, adding it to the existing map for free is no biggie, since the new map gets paid for. Backfill of an already existing species to other maps(like blacktails in Rancho) should be free.

There should, however, be some limits to backfills. Personally, I don't want a bunch more species in existing maps. Pop resets foul up my zones and makes things feel very crowded. More animals to spook.
I especially don't want any more waterfowl. The ones we already have are noise pollution on most maps. [Unless we get a mute option for ducks/geese.] Personally, I'd axe a bunch of duck species OFF maps if I could. I rarely hunt birds—especially waterfowl—unless it's a mission goal, a challenge goal or I'm training a retriever.

honest fern
rustic zinc
#

Bump

devout rain
#

I would definitely pay for a DLC to add new species to already existing maps instead of buying a new map every so often.

rustic zinc
#

bump

deft field
# honest fern God please give us more waterfowl there like 30% of what I hunt, who hunts with ...

Please no. You already have Revontuli and now Salzweisen Park to hunt birds. I already have to listen to incessant duck/geese noise everywhere on every map. I live in an area overrun by Canada Geese year round. They are not constant and loud. In 67 years around Mallards I can count on one hand how often I've heard the quack as they flew over.

Give me a mute, so I can shut them up unless I'm hunting them.

And I hate population resets for an reason. It clears all my zones and ruins my favorite hunting spots.

rustic zinc
#

bump

zenith blade
rustic zinc
#

New Species DLCs or New Species for Free?

rustic zinc
#

bump

rustic zinc
#

bump

rustic zinc
#

Bump

rustic zinc
#

bump

rustic zinc
#

Bump

#

New Species DLCs

rustic zinc
#

bump

deft field
# zenith blade Let me guess…You live literally anywhere in Manitoba

Nope. Nowhere near Canada. Even so, the duck/geese are obnoxious. A flock flying over is not making more than a honk or two unless they're signaling 'come look!' or down we go' .... Which is fine if you're hunting geese, but otherwise it's just a lot of useless—and dare I say, unrealistic—noise.

And, for those who seem astonished by my wanting to actually hear an animal approaching through the brush before they break cover .... well, you're not hunters.

honest fern
#

Well I live near a point where actual geese live 5 species actually and if your there doing migration they are loud af, yes even in flight, once I was out camping a few miles from that place and every 5 minutes or so a Glock of geese would fly over low and they always honked, I couldn't sleep that night, however I still think we should have a waterfowl noise toggle

rustic zinc
#

bump