Jump to content

Jatheish

Introducing the Equus!

Recommended Posts

On Sunday, January 15, 2017 at 0:46 PM, UDGxKnight said:

I didnt attack you. You claimed there was a problem with my post and I defendy my post. The fact of the matter is that it isnt an excuse that it is getting added just because it evolved along side us. If you want to be that technical about about it without thinking then dogs and cats are already in the game (Direwolves and Sabers and the soon to be added Hyenadon that is more doglike) so I dont understand your logic of why it was necceary to bring that up. The point is that if you want to say something cant be added cuz its "too modern" then tell the devs to take out mammoths, wolves, sabers, and basically anything from the Ice Age era because they are too similar to modern day animals.

That techinal? I simply used your logic. Also saying a dire wolf and sabertooth are cats and dogs is simplified logic not technical because technically dire wolves and dogs are apart of the canid family and smilodon and cats are apart of the felid family. And your hyaenodon argument is mute, hyaenodons aren't related to canids and they look like a combination of a weasel and a dog with a cat tail. I also said nothing about the devs not being able to add something, I simply stated according to your loose ruling any extant animal is prehistoric. So please tell me where I stated "the devs can't add something because it's too modern" because ultimately the devs can add anything they want, I just wish they added a few more prehistoric animals that are unique before adding actual extant animals. However beyond that I honestly don't care what else is added may it be a chicken or an earth worm because honestly the devs have covered a wide variety of prehistoric creatures already, so please stop assuming things and putting meager words in my mouth

Edited by Scorpio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, ciabattaroll said:

And yet I'm not the one saying "this things face makes it look like a cow so it can't be related to horses!".

Even less wise of you to quote me with things I've never said. All I said was quit complaining that you think the calico is the horse, when it looks like a cow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, Marksman00048 said:

Even less wise of you to quote me with things I've never said. All I said was quit complaining that you think the calico is the horse, when it looks like a cow.

No one is complaining about the chalico being the horse purely because it is the horse, or at the very least a horse given that they are from the same order. People had hoped for a cow (which is an even toed ungulate)  to be added into the game and you interjected with the erroneous "judging a book by it's cover" statement of :

On 1/11/2017 at 9:44 AM, Marksman00048 said:

That's the calicotherium yooo. Just look at its' head

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 minutes ago, ciabattaroll said:

No one is complaining about the chalico being the horse purely because it is the horse, or at the very least a horse given that they are from the same order. People had hoped for a cow (which is an even toed ungulate)  to be added into the game and you interjected with the erroneous "judging a book by it's cover" statement of :

 

Can you guys quit arguing about this?! Yes the Chalicotheriums are related to horses and have the faces of cows but, they also have the stance of a modern day gorilla so what's the point on arguing what it looks like and what its related to? The Rock Hyrax looks nothing like an elephant but is yet it is its closest living relative. So please stop arguing because I know that alot of people are probably pretty annoyed by now.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 hours ago, ciabattaroll said:

No one is complaining about the chalico being the horse purely because it is the horse, or at the very least a horse given that they are from the same order. People had hoped for a cow (which is an even toed ungulate)  to be added into the game and you interjected with the erroneous "judging a book by it's cover" statement of :

 

That statement is not even close to judgemental. I was just saying hey look no farther, calico is a cow to me. Make it sound like I'm slandering everyone nd poop when all I said was I consider the calico a cow. Don't give a poop if it's related to rhinos or not. We already have a woolly rhino so I guess no repeat dino descendents right? Better get rid of the argy because one if those dinos probably turned into it. Lol idc about the ancestry here. I'm excited about the horse lol

 

Carry on being an assuming silly pants.

 

8 hours ago, Xbone said:

Can you guys quit arguing about this?! Yes the Chalicotheriums are related to horses and have the faces of cows but, they also have the stance of a modern day gorilla so what's the point on arguing what it looks like and what its related to? The Rock Hyrax looks nothing like an elephant but is yet it is its closest living relative. So please stop arguing because I know that alot of people are probably pretty annoyed by now.

I agree, I'm well over this argument but like... I come back and he says things that are so stupid I can't help but reply. Lol kids feeding the trolls

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Scorpio said:

That techinal? I simply used your logic. Also saying a dire wolf and sabertooth are cats and dogs is simplified logic not technical because technically dire wolves and dogs are apart of the canid family and smilodon and cats are apart of the felid family. And your hyaenodon argument is mute, hyaenodons aren't related to canids and they look like a combination of a weasel and a dog with a cat tail. I also said nothing about the devs not being able to add something, I simply stated according to your loose ruling any extant animal is prehistoric. So please tell me where I stated "the devs can't add something because it's too modern" because ultimately the devs can add anything they want, I just wish they added a few more prehistoric animals that are unique before adding actual extant animals. However beyond that I honestly don't care what else is added may it be a chicken or an earth worm because honestly the devs have covered a wide variety of prehistoric creatures already, so please stop assuming things and putting meager words in my mouth

First: I didn't put words in your mouth, you chose to take it that way. All I said was that "IF you want to say something cant be added cuz its "too modern"," the you should ask for the devs to take it out. Now that statement if you will go back and re-read it without it being directed at you it will make more sense. That whole last statement was basically for anyone with that argument and if that is what you really thought, not directed at anyone specifically. 

Second: Yeah the science behind cats/dogs and wolves/sabers puts them in separate categories. Still doesn't change the fact that they share MANY similarities including appearance, (these will just be assumptions because there is literally 0 ways to know for sure how an extinct creature that we have no record of acted) the way they probably hunted, their behavioral patterns  , etc etc. Hyaenodons may not really be dogs, but I can see it now all the people saying how closely they look like some mongrel dog they could go find in their neighborhood or how dumb it is that we are getting a Hyaena when they are running around in the modern world same thing they do with other things in this game and now including the sheep and horse. I guess nice job on doing all that research just to prove someone wrong even though I specifically said under technicality (its not simplified logic) they are cats and dogs not that they were literally cats and dogs, so it was kind of a waste of time.

Third: I never said any extinct animal is prehistoric. Did you literally ignore the Dodo thing? I would even go as far as to say even Mammoths aren't prehistoric because primitive humans made records of them by painting them on cave walls, which in my books counts as a written history just not a very educated one or one that stands up to todays standards. Prehistoric means before human records btw so that means that as long as we don't have visual proof of it written down in some way shape or form and it happened before the first time something was written down then it is Prehistoric, which means if an animal went extinct before human records were created then THAT makes it Prehistoric.

Fourth: If you don't care then why continue this charade? I personally am done here and can't wait till the devs get crazy and start adding more mythological creatures(so that way people will get over this ridiculous realism thing). Thanks to the Explorer Notes confirming the ARKS are space stations, that means whatever put us there has the ability to create whatever creatures they choose. 

Edited by UDGxKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, UDGxKnight said:

First: I didn't put words in your mouth, you chose to take it that way. All I said was that "IF you want to say something cant be added cuz its "too modern"," the you should ask for the devs to take it out. Now that statement if you will go back and re-read it without it being directed at you it will make more sense. That whole last statement was basically for anyone with that argument and if that is what you really thought, not directed at anyone specifically. 

Second: Yeah the science behind cats/dogs and wolves/sabers puts them in separate categories. Still doesn't change the fact that they share MANY similarities including appearance, (these will just be assumptions because there is literally 0 ways to know for sure how an extinct creature that we have no record of acted) the way they probably hunted, their behavioral patterns  , etc etc. Hyaenodons may not really be dogs, but I can see it now all the people saying how closely they look like some mongrel dog they could go find in their neighborhood or how dumb it is that we are getting a Hyaena when they are running around in the modern world same thing they do with other things in this game and now including the sheep and horse. I guess nice job on doing all that research just to prove someone wrong even though I specifically said under technicality (its not simplified logic) they are cats and dogs not that they were literally cats and dogs, so it was kind of a waste of time.

Third: I never said any extinct animal is prehistoric. Did you literally ignore the Dodo thing? I would even go as far as to say even Mammoths aren't prehistoric because primitive humans made records of them by painting them on cave walls, which in my books counts as a written history just not a very educated one or one that stands up to todays standards. Prehistoric means before human records btw so that means that as long as we don't have visual proof of it written down in some way shape or form and it happened before the first time something was written down then it is Prehistoric, which means if an animal went extinct before human records were created then THAT makes it Prehistoric.

Fourth: If you don't care then why continue this charade? I personally am done here and can't wait till the devs get crazy and start adding more mythological creatures(so that way people will get over this ridiculous realism thing). Thanks to the Explorer Notes confirming the ARKS are space stations, that means whatever put us there has the ability to create whatever creatures they choose. 

You ask why you two are continuing this argument yet you're the one still rambling on and 'defending' your original post. 

youre also just making accusations and saying that he did all of this research to prove you wrong. I speak to him all of the time and I know that it's all prior knowledge to him as well as basic biology. 

You are correct that the creators of the ark can add in whatever they please. But you also gotta remember that this is a game that adds awesome prehistoric and non prehistoric creatures with these amazing abilities for people's entertainment. the Ovis Aries is just the modern sheep we see today. The only difference is that it's bigger and has different horns due to the devs creative license. You can go on with it being around for more than 10000 years but in the end, it's just a sheep. When you go to an exotic zoo, why is it that you don't see any sheep? Because it's a sheep. And sheep are boring and not exotic.  There could be special goats. But we're talking about the normal sheep. Which is what Scorpio has been trying to say. It's not an exotic animal. It's a plain modern animal you see everyday alongside humans. All he asked was for some more exotic animals. Then people will say 'you might as well remove the mammoths, dodoes and the other ice age animals cause they were alongside humans briefly'. You are right. But the difference between a mammoth and the sheep is that the mammoth is a fan favourite. The sheep was introduced cause they were nominated for an award. Not a fan favourite. The equss howerver was a fan favourite to a large group of people who wanted a horse. 

In the ark, every smart person can understand that this is a game with not only prehistoric creatures, but with mythical ones too. If you took this into a realistic standpoint, any creature that should be added should have to be able to survive on the island that is filled with all of these dangerous animals. I can let the equss slide cause it's fast and can possibly kill raptor sized preds by kicking them. The sheep? Not so much. Kairuki and dodos can survive cause there's a large quantity of them. Lots of eggs and babies. The only other animal I can think at the top of my head right now that cannot survive is the lystro. But the lystro probably got added in cause it was a fan favourite. 

@Scorpio  A more exotic version of the sheep IMO would be the andrewsarchus. The largest mammalian predator that can passively shed its fur as a harvesting ability. Not to mention it being a Great War mount. Yes it is a very early ancestor of the sheep and goats. But it's still an exotic animal and a fan favourite for some people. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

First: if it wasn't directed at me, it deserved no place in your argument.

Second: thanks for the compliment on my prior knowledge :P also I have no idea why you brought up people's inability to know for certain how prehistoric creatures acted because I said nothing about this but now that you have brought this up, I'll list a few ways. (I'm hoing to give a hypothetical situation someone who may find an animal fossil, can find there self in) First let's say a fossil had extremely sharp or serrated teeth, after seeing such a thing you could only accurately assume it is a carnivore, but let's say the creature had mostly molars, then you could only assume it is a herbivore and vice versa. Now for the cat and dog argument, calling a smilodon and dire wolf a cat and dog is simplified logic because it's a simpler way of saying they are apart of the canid and felid group but if you literally call them a cat and dog, that is inaccurate bease it refers to the domesticated species. Let me give you an example of why it is incorrect. For example let's say you have a rabbit and a rat and you called the rabbit a big rat, technically you are incorrect but they are both apart of the rodent family

Third: if you are referring to me saying "extant" I hope you know that means, species of animals that are currently alive and extinct means a whole animal species is dead. And I honestly don't know what you are rambling on about, ark clearly isn't just about prehistory as you have pointed out many times before but even so the mammoth is iconic and a extinct creature which instantly granted it access to ark. also Keep in mind I'm not saying this makes it have a bigger right then other animal candidates. Now for the goat it is literally an extant creature which makes its addition random and unecessary compared to other possibilities.

Fourth: If you wanted to end it you simply needed not to reply but as of yet, you have. Also I am mainly excited for the confirmed griffin and pheonix but if I had to choose other candidates it would be a leviathan and a kraken  (the one from clash of titans) and for prehistoric creatures the gorgonospid (I know it's confirmed, I just want to see its dossier) and maybe ambulocetus, andrewsarchus, and maybe koolasuchus

Edited by Scorpio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
57 minutes ago, Kaprodonychus said:

You ask why you two are continuing this argument yet you're the one still rambling on and 'defending' your original post. 

youre also just making accusations and saying that he did all of this research to prove you wrong. I speak to him all of the time and I know that it's all prior knowledge to him as well as basic biology. 

You are correct that the creators of the ark can add in whatever they please. But you also gotta remember that this is a game that adds awesome prehistoric and non prehistoric creatures with these amazing abilities for people's entertainment. the Ovis Aries is just the modern sheep we see today. The only difference is that it's bigger and has different horns due to the devs creative license. You can go on with it being around for more than 10000 years but in the end, it's just a sheep. When you go to an exotic zoo, why is it that you don't see any sheep? Because it's a sheep. And sheep are boring and not exotic.  There could be special goats. But we're talking about the normal sheep. Which is what Scorpio has been trying to say. It's not an exotic animal. It's a plain modern animal you see everyday alongside humans. All he asked was for some more exotic animals. Then people will say 'you might as well remove the mammoths, dodoes and the other ice age animals cause they were alongside humans briefly'. You are right. But the difference between a mammoth and the sheep is that the mammoth is a fan favourite. The sheep was introduced cause they were nominated for an award. Not a fan favourite. The equss howerver was a fan favourite to a large group of people who wanted a horse. 

In the ark, every smart person can understand that this is a game with not only prehistoric creatures, but with mythical ones too. If you took this into a realistic standpoint, any creature that should be added should have to be able to survive on the island that is filled with all of these dangerous animals. I can let the equss slide cause it's fast and can possibly kill raptor sized preds by kicking them. The sheep? Not so much. Kairuki and dodos can survive cause there's a large quantity of them. Lots of eggs and babies. The only other animal I can think at the top of my head right now that cannot survive is the lystro. But the lystro probably got added in cause it was a fan favourite. 

@Scorpio  A more exotic version of the sheep IMO would be the andrewsarchus. The largest mammalian predator that can passively shed its fur as a harvesting ability. Not to mention it being a Great War mount. Yes it is a very early ancestor of the sheep and goats. But it's still an exotic animal and a fan favourite for some people. 

Yea, thanks for the input, that's basically what I've been telling him but even though I understand his reasoning no matter what I say, it seems he can't understand mine.

Also andrewsarchus would have been a great sheep, but I feel like the devs felt rushed by the award at hand and so decided to add the sheep on a whim

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Kaprodonychus said:

You ask why you two are continuing this argument yet you're the one still rambling on and 'defending' your original post. 

youre also just making accusations and saying that he did all of this research to prove you wrong. I speak to him all of the time and I know that it's all prior knowledge to him as well as basic biology. 

You are correct that the creators of the ark can add in whatever they please. But you also gotta remember that this is a game that adds awesome prehistoric and non prehistoric creatures with these amazing abilities for people's entertainment. the Ovis Aries is just the modern sheep we see today. The only difference is that it's bigger and has different horns due to the devs creative license. You can go on with it being around for more than 10000 years but in the end, it's just a sheep. When you go to an exotic zoo, why is it that you don't see any sheep? Because it's a sheep. And sheep are boring and not exotic.  There could be special goats. But we're talking about the normal sheep. Which is what Scorpio has been trying to say. It's not an exotic animal. It's a plain modern animal you see everyday alongside humans. All he asked was for some more exotic animals. Then people will say 'you might as well remove the mammoths, dodoes and the other ice age animals cause they were alongside humans briefly'. You are right. But the difference between a mammoth and the sheep is that the mammoth is a fan favourite. The sheep was introduced cause they were nominated for an award. Not a fan favourite. The equss howerver was a fan favourite to a large group of people who wanted a horse. 

In the ark, every smart person can understand that this is a game with not only prehistoric creatures, but with mythical ones too. If you took this into a realistic standpoint, any creature that should be added should have to be able to survive on the island that is filled with all of these dangerous animals. I can let the equss slide cause it's fast and can possibly kill raptor sized preds by kicking them. The sheep? Not so much. Kairuki and dodos can survive cause there's a large quantity of them. Lots of eggs and babies. The only other animal I can think at the top of my head right now that cannot survive is the lystro. But the lystro probably got added in cause it was a fan favourite. 

@Scorpio  A more exotic version of the sheep IMO would be the andrewsarchus. The largest mammalian predator that can passively shed its fur as a harvesting ability. Not to mention it being a Great War mount. Yes it is a very early ancestor of the sheep and goats. But it's still an exotic animal and a fan favourite for some people. 

Listen I see what your doing and its sweet, but you shouldn't have to defend someone who A( I wasn't being hostile towards and B( sounded smart enough to defend themselves. I could care less what knowledge you claim to know @Scorpio claims to know or bla bla bla. This is the internet, unless you give me physical proof in person that you have this knowledge then all it becomes is hot air. That is why I specifically say to look things up or speak in technicalities and I don't claim to know the things I say off the top of my head cuz imo that just makes you seem like a braggart and then kinda just leads to seeming childish. If you actually know the information off the top of your head then hey kudos to you, you know some things but I don't care pretty much is what I am saying.

What you seem to fail to recognize is that the reality of this game is normal real world situations don't at all matter really. The Arks are space stations being monitored and regulated by some higher power. Meaning that wether or not the creatures can survive is moot because the creators can just reconstitute their population with cloning. If the creators deem the creature necessary or that it would help/himder their chosen subjects in some way then it gets added. An easily recognizable creature is just one way to do that, if you saw some giant hairy creature you would probably think hey its fur would keep me warm but would I be able to essentially farm the creature for this warm pelt. Enter the sheep, which thanks to human interaction with its ancestors we know its purpose already, whose wool humans know for a fact can be used to keep them warm and that the sheep regrow their wool relatively quickly(I don't have and exact estimate of how long its supposed to take before you can shave them). Sure a Mammoth or other larger mammal would give more, but do you or any other humans around know how quickly an extinct creature, which we have no in depth biological record of, can regrow its pelt? There is your sheets purpose wether or not it is exotic or any other irrelevant reason. I already explained the horse so Im not doing it again, its basically the same thing. 

I understand wanting exotic creatures, but that is just not thinking about the reasoning behind it. If you were in the place of the higher power testing these survivors it would make a lot of sense.

@Scorpio I do completely understand what you are saying. I may be seeming like I don't, but I really do. You just need to understand there are more than meanings for words. Technicalities are basically simplified logic in the meaning I am saying. A wolf is technically a dog it just isn't on the same evolutionary path. A smilodon is basically a big cat for the same reason. Most dinosaurs are technically birds. A marine reptile is just an aquatic lizard. You see it may simple but its just a technicality. Technicalities in the sense I am using them are just generalizations, which are I guess simplifications, that help people understand. I mean under a technicality, with how science believes life started, we are just giant bacteria that are a lot more complicated because that is what we came from no matter the science that we are radically different.

Edited by UDGxKnight

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, UDGxKnight said:

Listen I see what your doing and its sweet, but you shouldn't have to defend someone who A( I wasn't being hostile towards and B( sounded smart enough to defend themselves. I could care less what knowledge you claim to know @Scorpio claims to know or bla bla bla. This is the internet, unless you give me physical proof in person that you have this knowledge then all it becomes is hot air. That is why I specifically say to look things up or speak in technicalities and I don't claim to know the things I say off the top of my head cuz imo that just makes you seem like a braggart and then kinda just leads to seeming childish. If you actually know the information off the top of your head then hey kudos to you, you know some things but I don't care pretty much is what I am saying.

What you seem to fail to recognize is that the reality of this game is normal real world situations don't at all matter really. The Arks are space stations being monitored and regulated by some higher power. Meaning that wether or not the creatures can survive is moot because the creators can just reconstitute their population with cloning. If the creators deem the creature necessary or that it would help/himder their chosen subjects in some way then it gets added. An easily recognizable creature is just one way to do that, if you saw some giant hairy creature you would probably think hey its fur would keep me warm but would I be able to essentially farm the creature for this warm pelt. Enter the sheep, which thanks to human interaction with its ancestors we know its purpose already, whose wool humans know for a fact can be used to keep them warm and that the sheep regrow their wool relatively quickly(I don't have and exact estimate of how long its supposed to take before you can shave them). Sure a Mammoth or other larger mammal would give more, but do you or any other humans around know how quickly an extinct creature, which we have no in depth biological record of, can regrow its pelt? There is your sheets purpose wether or not it is exotic or any other irrelevant reason. I already explained the horse so Im not doing it again, its basically the same thing. 

I understand wanting exotic creatures, but that is just not thinking about the reasoning behind it. If you were in the place of the higher power testing these survivors it would make a lot of sense.

If you didn't care you shouldn't have brought it up in the first place, you were also clearly trying to insult my intellect which is why kapro probably intervened however I do agree his intervention wasn't necessary. I also could care less about proving anything to a stranger on the Internet I don't know, nor care for. And honestly was your passive aggressiveness with the use of the word "sweet" really necessary because out of anything that was childish.

"Normal real world situations don't matter" I hope you know that even though ark is very fictional the devs clearly still try to add some reality hence why they tried to explain the dodo, kairuku, and goats survival tactic of reproduction 

Your reason for the sheep is yet again null and void, first off the sheep's traits yet again could have been given to any greatly furred creature with the devs creative license so honestly i believe they only picked it for the award

The sheep is probably the most out of place animal in ark it is literally an extant sheep but you can't seem to fathom that, this is where the arguement first originated. I really didn't think me correcting you was a cause for your defense, I was merely trying to enlighten you so you didn't spread any further lies with the ignorance you clearly have. As I my self would like to know if I was correct before spreading info. So please don't jump into a debate about something you don't have at least some prior knowledge on. 

Edited by Scorpio

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, UDGxKnight said:

Listen I see what your doing and its sweet, but you shouldn't have to defend someone who A( I wasn't being hostile towards and B( sounded smart enough to defend themselves. I could care less what knowledge you claim to know @Scorpio claims to know or bla bla bla. This is the internet, unless you give me physical proof in person that you have this knowledge then all it becomes is hot air. That is why I specifically say to look things up or speak in technicalities and I don't claim to know the things I say off the top of my head cuz imo that just makes you seem like a braggart and then kinda just leads to seeming childish. If you actually know the information off the top of your head then hey kudos to you, you know some things but I don't care pretty much is what I am saying.

What you seem to fail to recognize is that the reality of this game is normal real world situations don't at all matter really. The Arks are space stations being monitored and regulated by some higher power. Meaning that wether or not the creatures can survive is moot because the creators can just reconstitute their population with cloning. If the creators deem the creature necessary or that it would help/himder their chosen subjects in some way then it gets added. An easily recognizable creature is just one way to do that, if you saw some giant hairy creature you would probably think hey its fur would keep me warm but would I be able to essentially farm the creature for this warm pelt. Enter the sheep, which thanks to human interaction with its ancestors we know its purpose already, whose wool humans know for a fact can be used to keep them warm and that the sheep regrow their wool relatively quickly(I don't have and exact estimate of how long its supposed to take before you can shave them). Sure a Mammoth or other larger mammal would give more, but do you or any other humans around know how quickly an extinct creature, which we have no in depth biological record of, can regrow its pelt? There is your sheets purpose wether or not it is exotic or any other irrelevant reason. I already explained the horse so Im not doing it again, its basically the same thing. 

I understand wanting exotic creatures, but that is just not thinking about the reasoning behind it. If you were in the place of the higher power testing these survivors it would make a lot of sense.

@Scorpio I do completely understand what you are saying. I may be seeming like I don't, but I really do. You just need to understand there are more than meanings for words. Technicalities are basically simplified logic in the meaning I am saying. A wolf is technically a dog it just isn't on the same evolutionary path. A smilodon is basically a big cat for the same reason. Most dinosaurs are technically birds. A marine reptile is just an aquatic lizard. You see it may simple but its just a technicality. Technicalities in the sense I am using them are just generalizations, which are I guess simplifications, that help people understand. I mean under a technicality, with how science believes life started, we are just giant bacteria that are a lot more complicated because that is what we came from no matter the science that we are radically different.

Childish? You were the one you said and I quote 'nice job on doing some research just to prove someone wrong'. I don't know about anyone else but I deemed that to be childish. You say you do not care if he has prior knowledge or not yet you were the person to bring it up in the first place. Clearly you were being hostile/passive aggressive in order in to make such a silly remark. 

In a commen sense approach, it would be pointless to continuously clone any animal and place them back into the ark if their population was to keep dying. There's no point in that cause they'll continue to die and it's a waste of the creator's time. You'll have to either tweak the sheep or simply add in something else with the same use (like my example andrewsarchus). It wouldnt matter how long it takes for a mammoth's pelt to grow back. The mammoth is a super large animal. You can just give it a little trim and it'll give you more than twice the amount of pelt a sheep would give you, therefore you wouldn't need to come back to that mammoth for a long time. If you needed more and the mammoth is still growing, you use another mammoth or rhino just like how farmers move onto shearing the next sheep when the first sheep is already sheared. It would take longer to farm off a sheep than a larger mammal because they're smaller and Have less pelt, therefore you must require to have a lot of sheep in order to harvest the amount of pelt one or two mammoths could give you, no to mention that sheep wriggle around and try to break free when you're shearing them. With a mammoth, it could give the a great amount of pelt simply because it's a lot larger. Simply adding in the sheep because humans already know it's purpose is flawed. You can take a walk around the island and will know how every creature can aid you in a way. 

Therizinosaurus? Hey look at those claws, could help me fight other creatures and possibly cut down trees. 

Tyrannosaurus? Hey look at those teeth, they could easily aid me in a battle. 

Utahraptor? Eh, the teeth won't do that much damage but hey, look at its speed and sickle claws. Definitely an ambush animal. 

Kaprosuchus? Looks like a small sarc-hey! Look at that pounce. Another ambush animal I can use. 

I understand what you mean by handling a sheep would be easier, but what I'm saying is that it wouldn't take long for humans to easily handle the deadlier animals and therefore saying that a sheep is still in a way, not needed. The game shows that already. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Stoked. :D

I didn't think Equines and Dire wolves could exist in the same game because both Devs and players usually love one and hate the other for some reason. No idea why... It's good to know that the horse will be useful, too. I don't expect it to fight but I'm really not a stag or moose fan so I couldn't get myself to be enamored with the Elk. Ive been wanting something small and hardy to ride for some time and my go to was the Wolf. It will be nice to ride a horse with a couple wolves or raptors nearby and use a gun or crossbow while mounted. I hope Equus can pivot like Scorpions though, real horses are more than capable of it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Lol man i was hoping for something with a bit more meat to it something super vicious that kept the hame fun and also the lag is becoming retarded so many of my friends have stopped playing due to lagging out or dinos just disappearing and on 700 the center you made it so the server could hold 100 people so people have started mass pillaring to stop that from cominh true due to lag issues

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...