I certainly wouldn’t object to a lot of the animals on the list. Especially the musk ox. Forgot about that guy. My main point being of course with support possibly ending sometime next year if not in December for all we know I could easily replace most animals on that list with animals more needed at this point. In a world of never ending support I’d definitely take more European animals. But even now with the European brown bear I’d personally rather have the Sumatran tiger since at this point I’d be forced to choose between the two.
It is shameful for Frontier that you cannot create a European zoo!
- Thread starter stonegarden
- Start date
I’m not saying what I think the game needs with the limited slots we are likely to get. I’m saying that Europe won’t be ‘complete’ with two more animals.
This is where the PK format for their animals comes into use here. Obviously it wouldn’t work for every animal but a tiger for example. You could get the Sumatran, Amur, and Bengal. Brown bear- Grizzly, European, and Syrian. Crocodile, giraffe, and so on. I hope if there’s a PZ2 someday frontier will borrow this idea.
PK is on a genus level tho. So lion, tiger, jaguar and stuuf would be all lumped together.
But in essence i agree
I’m not expecting Europe to be complete by the end of support and am fully aware that other continents might be prioritised but you yourself said that that those two species would complete Europe.
I don’t see much point in going back and forth like this but my point is that two animals won’t make Europe complete.
I don't understand why we keep throwing around the complete argument to justify making one continent less represented than another. I tried it with the oceania roster but I very soon was taught by our fellow oceania players there is so much more than the staple zoo animals found in the western world. That was just mammals, its a whole different meaning to the 'complete' phrase if we consider birds, reptiles and insects.
Those are completely unrelated features of the game. It's a literal shifting of the goalposts (or it would be, if this was an argument). Pretending one animal is a different animal is something you do, not something the game does.
IMO 'completion' is a ridiculous goal to strive for. It's impossible anyway. Oceania has good representation as it is (yeah, they could add a number of other species, but if we're being realistic...) - if I wanted 'completeness' and ignored flying birds, there are about 60 exhibit animals that show up in NZ zoos that I would need (fortunately I'm only still asking for one, the tuatara), and then at most three habitat animals (kunekune pig, takahe, and kekeno/Australasian fur seal). That's a tall order, of course, so I don't bother (I might express my desire to have these species, but I'm not asking for them).
True its unrelated. Just wanted to point out how ridiculous it its imo to restrict yourself in possibilities and fun by something as trivial as 3 words on an animal thats otherwise funtional identical, especially when said animal isnt that accurate in the first place .
I mean to each their own, not gonna force anyone to have more possibilities
Your mistake is assuming that everyone views it as a "possibility". The grizzly bear is not a Eurasian brown bear, it is a grizzly bear no matter how hard you make believe. If it was a generic 'brown bear' like the timber wolf, then fine, but it's not.True its unrelated. Just wanted to point out how ridiculous it its imo to restrict yourself in possibilities and fun by something as trivial as 3 words on an animal thats otherwise funtional identical, especially when said animal isnt that accurate in the first place .
I mean to each their own, not gonna force anyone to have more possibilities
I mean more potential animals means more possibilities no?
But the timber wolf isnt a generic grey wolf then either?
If European Fauna is so good then why did Europeans kill all of their native fauna
I blame the animals for being so tasty.
Was really close for those bison and cali condors aswell tho
This is the first laugh I had in days. Thank you.
No, because a lot of people don't view them as "potential animals". Because they aren't. A grizzly bear isn't "potentially" a Eurasian brown bear, it's a grizzly bear.
Once again, this is called "moving the goalposts". You're failing to make a good point so you're changing the rules. The timber wolf is a generic wolf in the game. It's Canis lupus, the species level of every grey wolf subspecies that exists (including the Arctic wolf, ironically, and the dingo depending on what taxonomic theory you subscribe to). If the "timber wolf" was Canis lupus orientalis then no, it wouldn't be a generic grey wolf.
The whole issue is that Americans think "timber wolf" exclusively refers to one or two subspecies but it doesn't. It's been a generic name for the grey wolf for ages (or rather, northern/boreal grey wolves regardless of actual subspecies), it's just not a commonly used one and Frontier should have picked differently and gone with "grey wolf".
Yeah because of not being open to use them as such. What im saying is there are more potential animals if you can look past a handfull of letters you only see when you open their zoopedia.
I mean youre also failing to give a good point as to why you cant use the grizzly as the euro bb.
Im not american, but everywhere i look the name timberwolf specificly refers to the population/subspecies native to eastern NA around the great lakes
But i honestly really dont feel like arguing about this anymore. I see you dont want to use substitutes, i do it all the time. Im not trying to convince you otherwise, since it doesnt effect me and i really dont care how others play the game
Last edited: