Talk:Direwolf
Eye Colour
So the article lists 2 colour segments, body and eyes. This, from what I have seen and tested so far, is grossly incorrect. After spawning over a hundred direwolves (all that got random colour schemes), they all had the same eye colour. Furthermore, upon digging into the binary .ark file, this is what I found. There are 3 "ColorSetIndices" properties for a direwolf. The first one sets the base coat for the fur, the second one sets the highlights in the fur as well as the face and tail, and the third parameter is the feet/lower legs. To demonstrate this, here is a screenshot of a direwolf that originally looked pretty normal grey and brown set to (in order) black/red/white: http://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=610030547
As you can see, no property had any affect on eyes. I'm interested if there's something I've missed and someone took the effort to claim that the eyes can be different colours, does anyone know if there's any truth to this?Elspingle (talk) 04:25, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, thanks for checking this. I did some tests, too, and came to the same conclusion: the eyes are always yellowish. As this is a wiki, everybody can change things, so if you find something else to be wrong and checked what is correct, you can just go ahead and fix it. --Cadaeib (talk) 13:05, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Will do, I usually just fix things I notice appear to be wrong (so many wrong levels/mats on saddles etc) but in this case I was genuinely curious because eye colours would be nice --Elspingle (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Good thinking, it's better to check thing first before changing them. In this case I don't know who added the other colors, maybe this was changed or it was just wrong from the beginning. Thanks for bringing this up.--Cadaeib (talk) 16:37, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
- Will do, I usually just fix things I notice appear to be wrong (so many wrong levels/mats on saddles etc) but in this case I was genuinely curious because eye colours would be nice --Elspingle (talk) 16:30, 28 January 2016 (UTC)
Growth of Stats
Are these supposed to be for a level 1 tame, or in general? As in my testings today, the growth was a percentage of the base stats after taming. HP would be increased by 27%, weight by 4%, stamina, oxygen, food and melee by 10%
So for a high level creature, the "increase per point" is far away from reality. Here is a doc with my testings: [1] Amkorra (talk) 05:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- A few of us have known for a while that the increase-per-point for any given stat(excluding torpor) for any given creature is not static, and is affected by the initial value of the stat upon taming, and possibly level as well. However, until we can accurately deduce what the formula is, we just let passerby edit it to to the point where it approaches an average that nobody sees fit to change further. I thought I had come across the formula in the devkit when I was looking at Paracer stats; it implied an increase of 20% of the health per point, but when I tested it in-game, it got an increase of 27% after taming effectiveness - the same amount you say you got in 3 tests for direwolf. Interesting. I'll poke around both the game and devkit some more, but we may be on to something. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 14:56, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- I came to the idea of testing after I read a post on reddit about it being percentage instead of a fixed number and it seemed more fitting. Actually wanted to start doing this for more pets already, but I run into Wolfs too often <.< Will work on it for other pets tomorrow. Also, these where all tamed at like 99%, will try one with bad effectiveness, too, in order to see if this is what's making the 7 percent in difference makes up. If you have any other idea on what to test here, let me know, will try to include it if possible! Amkorra (talk) 16:13, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Get me everything you find and I'll scour the devkit for the relevant numbers. Hopefully we can find enough to either confirm that all creatures are the same, or failing that, figure out where the formulas for each creature are located so that we don't have to actually test each individual creature. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 17:00, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
- Ok, done some more testing - and I think I found your 20%! The data is all in the Doc I links in my first post, but some conclusions I came up to: Did the same with the Direwolfs to Ankylos and Carnos. Same results. So when I moved on to Brontos I tried something different.. The Stats definitely grow by percentage when tamed - this is the 27% I found earlier, but, for wild dinos the number appears to be a more static one (though still a perentage of the lvl 1 stats). I tested this only with Brontos so far, so keep in mind, until now this might be a Bronto only thing. In this case, they would gain 370 per level they speced into health (lvl 96 Bronto had 8140 HP, lvl 1 is 1850 => (8140-1850)/370 =17, so this Bronto got 17 levels of HP). And see, I found the 20%. 1850*20/100 = 370 points. I spawned in many lvl 2 Brontos to find the numbers. If they had more HP it would be 2220,0 - which again is 1850+370. There also might be a ~23% chance that the Dino won't get any increased stats for a level. One last thing to note is, the wild Bronto would also only get 2% in weight, instead of the 4% a tamed dino seems to get. Amkorra (talk) 06:13, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I could have told you that some dinos level up some of their stats in different amounts depending on whether or not they are tamed (it didn't seem relevant at the time). The devkit has separate lists for tamed and untamed level-up stat multipliers. The number that initially sparked my curiosity, the supposed 20% health gain on a Paracer, was the same value whether it was tamed or not, and yet in practice, it actually had a 27% gain, so we haven't gotten far from our first steps; there is still some multiplier out there that we aren't aware of. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it's something ^^ Guess I will test Paracer next then. Anything else you see differences in the DevKit? May be good to prioritize these in testing. When finished I would suggest adding a row to the table with "wild increment per point" or something like that, to add these values in. Would be good if I could find the reddit post, too, where someone else had done this testing and there where some creatures with only 20% increment, but can't remember what it was... nor find that post. After Parcer I'll do Argents and Dimorphodons, as they might have been nerfed in one way or the other. -- Amkorra (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- I've found it! A parameter called "Extra Tamed Health Multiplier", which is default 1.35 for paracer and direwolf (and some others, I haven't checked every dino). 0.2 * 1.35 = 0.27, there's our 27%. All the other value you've found match the 10% listed in the dev kit, so I think health is the only stat here that gets an extra multiplier. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 06:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
- Well, it's something ^^ Guess I will test Paracer next then. Anything else you see differences in the DevKit? May be good to prioritize these in testing. When finished I would suggest adding a row to the table with "wild increment per point" or something like that, to add these values in. Would be good if I could find the reddit post, too, where someone else had done this testing and there where some creatures with only 20% increment, but can't remember what it was... nor find that post. After Parcer I'll do Argents and Dimorphodons, as they might have been nerfed in one way or the other. -- Amkorra (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
- Unfortunately, I could have told you that some dinos level up some of their stats in different amounts depending on whether or not they are tamed (it didn't seem relevant at the time). The devkit has separate lists for tamed and untamed level-up stat multipliers. The number that initially sparked my curiosity, the supposed 20% health gain on a Paracer, was the same value whether it was tamed or not, and yet in practice, it actually had a 27% gain, so we haven't gotten far from our first steps; there is still some multiplier out there that we aren't aware of. --Mr Pie 5 (talk) 06:39, 2 October 2015 (UTC)