Preparing for the 2024 Habitat Animal Meta Wishlist...

[SpookDoc]

That's exactly what i came to when building my free-update metawishlist (for everything except animal additions), to accurately represent the submitted data i had to both allow people to voice their opinions freely with no limitations and avoid personal bias as much as possible. The result was one very complicated wishlist but with my skills i managed to find a good way to organise a huge mass of data in simple terms. I have random votes from the basic animal improvements to the extremely controversial suggestions like egglaying but i cant ignore someones voices because i personally disagree with them - sure its only 1 or 2 votes but their personal wishes were recorded.

At the end of the day, i decided that it is not my place as the metawishlist owner to decide whether or not a feature is possible ingame or not. What it does is tell frontier exactly what we desire. I really wish the animal wishlists would adopt such an approach.

Yeah I’m ok with that but I feel that there are many people out there who want macaws or eagles or manatees for the most and this new wishlist would be useless for them if they would not be able to put their wishes out there.

And what is more important Frontier would not see those wishes for flying birds or aquatics and it would look like nobody cares about them.

I don’t feel like it’s a good way to go.
Before we had no idea if gibbon would ever be possible but it was on the list. And now we should get rid of the manatees or macaws because we are not sure if they would be possible. That’s just useless for me. How anyone should know what is desired if we are not allowed to mention it???

And those wishlist were not popular at all because people don’t want 10 different wishlists. They want one for all the animals that they want.

If so then this new wishlist should indicate in its name that it’s only for land mammals, reptiles and ground birds. Because if it’s not it won’t be organized at all and would mislead.

I am really curious if we would led people to vote for whatever species they want and not mostly land mammals maybe we could see macaws beating wolverine. Who knows.

Years ago, back when RandomGoat first started their meta-list, I was tempted to start a different one that lacked the limitations/regulations of theirs. To try to to fully and “less-biasedly” capture what people truly want in PZ. And now years later, I really wish I had. Didn’t have the free time then, definitely don’t now (currently in Graduate School), but I really do think that the first meta-list has had a very large impact on Frontier’s design decisions for Planet Zoo. And I think things could have possibly been very different for the development of the game post-release had one, well-advertised meta-list that was intended to capture any-and-all animal “wishes” been created.

This isn’t to say that I think the game would now be full of fully aquatic, flying, and prehistoric species. Nor does it mean that those are the things I personally want in PZ. But I do think if somethings had been given the voting opportunity, they likely would be at the top of the meta-list. And less simple for Frontier to skip-over/work-around.

And yes, we all know that Frontier gets daily comments on all their socials about aquatic and flying creatures. But none of these things seem to hold the power that the on-forum meta-lists have. And this can be seen in the consistent implementation of species from the top of RandomGoat’s meta-list since shortly after its start. It’s no coincidence that each time there is a DLC, we can count on at least a few of the meta-list’s top 20 being present.

I agree with many others though that at this point, so much later in the game’s development cycle, the odds of a meta-list gaining the same levels of attention as earlier ones are slim-to-none. This isn’t to say that I think a new one shouldn’t be made though. It’s just that it’s voter engagement is likely going to be quite a bit lower, and therefore, less statistically useful.

Additionally, I find many of the counter arguments to a “free-for-all” meta-list to be hypocritical. Any argument made around what already exists within the game, and using this to somehow “foretell” all of Frontier’s possible intentions for the game is just as “wishful/guess-based” as the voter who wants a parrot in Planet Zoo. Simply look at all the discussion/disagreement that happens around what qualifies as a “habitat species” in PZ. People are always pre-applying their personal wants to what they deem acceptable for others to suggest for PZ. None of us truly know the full intentions of what Frontier has for the game, so why are any of us pretending as though we do? Before we got Meerkats, many people said they were too small for habitats, before we had butterflies people said Frontier wouldn’t likely do them because many thought they could only be a special effects item/cluster (something Frontier openly stated they would never do for any animal in PZ), but here we are years later with both types of animal in-game.

Assuming you're talking about habitat animals, which restrictions do you have a problem with?

All this said, if you want to avoid personal biases, one needs to avoid making too many limitations in what would qualify as an “acceptable vote”.

 

[The_Riot22]

Wow that "discussion" was painful to read thru lol.

Agree that there is no point of adding flying birds or fully aquatic animals to this thread. Sure it is theoretically possible Frontier could add them, but at this point, either one of those options are far from a reality.
So no point in asking this thread organizer to have to tally all those votes for birds and fishies, which is a lot more work.
I'm sure if either mechanic gets added in future DLCs there will be an option to add them here(or there will certainly be other threads where you can get your votes out).

 

[DarthQuell]

I find many of the counter arguments to a “free-for-all” meta-list to be hypocritical.

I wouldn't say hypocritical, more like reasonable. At the time, we had no idea what Frontier is capable of. We still don't, which is why I'm not fully discounting the possibility of birds.

However, there's a fine line here. There are many things that possibly won't work; one could be marine animals. As of right now, the way the game works is that we can't even alter the terrain behind staff gates, meaning that we can't get them close enough for staff to get into the water and interact with the animals. Could it be changed? Maybe.

But, why waste votes on animals that may never come, that may not even be on the drawing board, when we can choose from a multitude of habitat species that can currently fit the game, not to mention that these animals tend to have more priority anyways in the eyes of many.

Wow that "discussion" was painful to read thru lol.

Agree that there is no point of adding flying birds or fully aquatic animals to this thread. Sure it is theoretically possible Frontier could add them, but at this point, either one of those options are far from a reality.
So no point in asking this thread organizer to have to tally all those votes for birds and fishies, which is a lot more work.
I'm sure if either mechanic gets added in future DLCs there will be an option to add them here(or there will certainly be other threads where you can get your votes out).

Sorry
But yeah, I agree. I think a good compromise would be to make a sorta meta-wishlist wishlist, comparing the top 10 of each meta-wishlist and seeing which get more votes

 

[DarthQuell]

It’s pointless to do this. This won’t show anything new. Just the same people requesting the same species with mediocre number of participants.
Come take part but remember that you can vote on only what we’ve decided is going to be good for the future of the game.

Something is something. Instead of ridiculing it, just accept that it can be useful. Would you rather have the same wishlist spammed in 30 threads?

If you think it's a waste, then just ignore it and let others do what they want

 

[NachoB]

But, why waste votes on animals that may never come, that may not even be on the drawing board, when we can choose from a multitude of habitat species that can currently fit the game, not to mention that these animals tend to have more priority anyways in the eyes of many.

Because there are a lot more flying birds and aquatic animals that i want more than several other "habitat" animals and i would like my wishlist to reflect that.

Is fine if this list will be once again limited to what is possible with current mechanics (or at least what we know is possible in base of what we have got so far) but half my picks for habitat animals won't really reflect my top picks for animals that i want for the game in general. I assure you half my list would probably be comprised of birds and a couple of aquatic animals if all extant "large" vertebrate species are allowed lol.

 

[nutrit]

No one is forcing anyone to participate. The wishlist is supposed to be about habitat animals, and plenty of people seemed to participate. It's actually kind of rare that someone gets confused and adds birds, extinct animals, 4x4 exhibit animals, or something tiny like hamsters that I have to exclude. The only time I remember a "fight" on this thread was over whether or not aquatics should be excluded, which is why I'm asking about it now.

A major reason I started doing this in the first place was that random goat was repeatedly expressing that the workload was stressing them out and they understandably didn't want to do substitutions. This yearly one gives people an outlet for that if they so choose.

Whether or not to do the 2024 habitat animal list wasn't one of the questions. Expanding the 2024 habitat animal list to include exhibit animals is not feasible for me, as I've already stated. Your negativity and conspiracy theories are bordering on rude. Please stop.

You are asking for our opinions and then ignore the voices that are not compatible with your views and that’s fine. It’s your project. But why bother asking anything if all the decisions have been made already
I am not negative. If constructive criticism bothers you just don’t read it. But remember you have asked for it in the first place.
Your list from 2022 was a great project but showed absolutely nothing new. There are the same animals in the top 20 that there are in random’s list so why bother and do the same thing all over again?
Asking sincerely.

 

[DarthQuell]

There are the same animals in the top 20 that there are in random’s list so why bother and do the same thing all over again?

Here's my theory, but I'm probably wrong:

The top 10-20 will probably be more or less the same, yes. But the rest of the list? Those that aren't requested as much? Those are surely gonna change. And we know that Frontier is milking PlanZo as much as they can by not choosing animals from only the top 20, but going down further into the requests.
So, where a chacoan peccary and a collared peccary would've been in, say, the 50 ranks, now that we got 1, the other peccary may end up falling out of favor. Or, alternatively, it may get a popularity boost. But the wishlist itself will be different, I'm sure if that. Needs and desires change, and seeing as how some people have changed their votes because their animal of choice, or a similar species was added, I think that, in the end, popular or not, a 2024 wishlist would be beneficial

 

[SuzieSky]

You are asking for our opinions and then ignore the voices that are not compatible with your views and that’s fine. It’s your project. But why bother asking anything if all the decisions have been made already

I haven't made decisions on the matters I posted about. Some were unhappy with how the previous list was constructed, so I was opening a space to hear feedback. What evidence do you have to suggest I have "ignored voices that are not compatible with [my] views"? While some wanted a list that included exhibit animals, I didn't ignore their feedback or express "views"; I said that it wasn't possible for me. Fortunately, there are other regional wishlists where people can post any extant animal. I take this as a serious accusation, but I somehow can't find any examples of me doing this. Prove it.

I am not negative. If constructive criticism bothers you just don’t read it. But remember you have asked for it in the first place.

Repeatedly posting about your disdain for the endeavor in a space for constructive criticism comes across as negative to me. I fail to see how the following is constructive:

It’s pointless to do this. This won’t show anything new. Just the same people requesting the same species with mediocre number of participants.
Come take part but remember that you can vote on only what we’ve decided is going to be good for the future of the game.

The emojis, as not just I have suggested, indicate you are ridiculing the project. The first sentences are too harsh tonally for me to possibly consider as constructive criticism. The last one reads like a conspiracy theory to discredit my character. Put together it sounds unhelpful, unconstructive, dishonest, and mean. Perhaps you didn't intend to sound that way, but that's what I heard. It was hurtful and derailing the conversation to the point where I felt the need to address it.

Your list from 2022 was a great project but showed absolutely nothing new. There are the same animals in the top 20 that there are in random’s list so why bother and do the same thing all over again?
Asking sincerely.

If you are genuinely trying to spare me work, I thank you. I appreciate the positive feedback. Again, here are my reasons for yearly wishlists:

1. Boredom + procrastination + loving animals and discussing them + social isolation + wanting to program = I need a project
2. Random goat was previously expressing that they didn't have the time for the list anymore (I'm very glad it is still being updated) and wouldn't be able to do substitutions. This gives people a space to update their lists where the results will still be compiled instead of badgering them.
3. Some animals fall out of favor when similar animals are added. Some were criticizing the order of the main wishlist for not accounting for that. This wishlist does by refreshing each year.
4. I still get people wanting to do substitutions on my list that seem excited to post one for the 2024 list. I already promised I would do this while the game has support. As long as I'm able, I intend to keep my word.
5. I'm not surprised that some people are drawn to similar (the top 20 are not identical) top animals on both lists. As @DarthQuell said, the order of some of the less-requested animals changes with new additions, shifts in popularity, and posts highlighting the positive traits of relatively unknown animals.
6. I have a couple of alternative counting systems that incorporate people's favorite animals. There are a few other numbers now, in part due to feedback. If people are interested, they can check those out.

 

[nutrit]

I haven't made decisions on the matters I posted about. Some were unhappy with how the previous list was constructed, so I was opening a space to hear feedback. What evidence do you have to suggest I have "ignored voices that are not compatible with [my] views"? While some wanted a list that included exhibit animals, I didn't ignore their feedback or express "views"; I said that it wasn't possible for me. Fortunately, there are other regional wishlists where people can post any extant animal. I take this as a serious accusation, but I somehow can't find any examples of me doing this. Prove it.

Repeatedly posting about your disdain for the endeavor in a space for constructive criticism comes across as negative to me. I fail to see how the following is constructive:

The emojis, as not just I have suggested, indicate you are ridiculing the project. The first sentences are too harsh tonally for me to possibly consider as constructive criticism. The last one reads like a conspiracy theory to discredit my character. Put together it sounds unhelpful, unconstructive, dishonest, and mean. Perhaps you didn't intend to sound that way, but that's what I heard. It was hurtful and derailing the conversation to the point where I felt the need to address it.

If you are genuinely trying to spare me work, I thank you. I appreciate the positive feedback. Again, here are my reasons for yearly wishlists:

1. Boredom + procrastination + loving animals and discussing them + social isolation + wanting to program = I need a project
2. Random goat was previously expressing that they didn't have the time for the list anymore (I'm very glad it is still being updated) and wouldn't be able to do substitutions. This gives people a space to update their lists where the results will still be compiled instead of badgering them.
3. Some animals fall out of favor when similar animals are added. Some were criticizing the order of the main wishlist for not accounting for that. This wishlist does by refreshing each year.
4. I still get people wanting to do substitutions on my list that seem excited to post one for the 2024 list. I already promised I would do this while the game has support. As long as I'm able, I intend to keep my word.
5. I'm not surprised that some people are drawn to similar (the top 20 are not identical) top animals on both lists. As @DarthQuell said, the order of some of the less-requested animals changes with new additions, shifts in popularity, and posts highlighting the positive traits of relatively unknown animals.
6. I have a couple of alternative counting systems that incorporate people's favorite animals. There are a few other numbers now, in part due to feedback. If people are interested, they can check those out.

@SuzieSky Please accept my apologies. It was not my intention for you to feel like that.

 

[SuzieSky]

@SuzieSky Please accept my apologies. It was not my intention for you to feel like that.

We're cool.

 

[KellyL]

@SuzieSky Please accept my apologies. It was not my intention for you to feel like that.

@nutrit and @SuzieSky

 

[Villanelle]

I'd prefer:

• no to fully aqautic animals
• no restrictions on habitat animal sizes

& everything else is perfect. Thank you so much for doing this @SuzieSky ! And I commend you on your grace and articulation

 

[Alexjh]

I think the fully marine animal list is kinda bit weird, cos I don't see any chance of introducing elaborate aquarium designing mechanics, but, I don't think it's entirely implausible that they might introduce a walk-through exhibit esque or for that matter, introduce fully aquatic species into exhibit tanks - there's no technological reason why they couldn't given we already have axolotl.

I'd also think that turtles are probably the most plausible in terms of minimal mechanical changes because they at least can just about move on land, so could theoretically function as a normal habitat animal that just crawls over to the water and then basically never comes out?

Manatees I would state as anomalous / plausible just because they do share habitats with species already in the game (alligator, caiman) and unlike say, dolphins or sharks, they are pretty slow moving which means that you don't have to worry so much about animation/pathfinding - they will just float there grazing, while those two would require complex behavioural animations - essentially the latter I think you'd need to do the "marine walkthrough exhibit" to make work, while manatees should be much easier to achieve in a habitat.

But equally, I don't think either are necessarily gonna be priorities at this point unless they decide to go the direction of a pack very specifically tailored to accomodate them? Maybe in an Americas themed pack, but I'm not feeling like a swamp pack or brackish water pack are exactly gonna be high on the agenda?

 

[ReptoMin]

Well, we did have wishlists for those as well. @yoav_r did the aquatic meta-wishlist, @TheDuckKnight and @Spiderhawk did bird wishlists, and I did the exhibit meta-wishlist with the help of @ReptoMin, while they were still around.

I'm still around

 

[The Carcharodontogenius]

I'm still around

You're back.

 

[ReptoMin]

You're back.

Technically I never left, just the Exhibit Meta-Wishlist wasn't active enough for me to Update it again the past month or so. I keep an eye on the Forums still.

 

[SuzieSky]

This is what I plan to do:

1. I'm going to continue to allow votes for fully aquatic animals. While a majority weren't in favor, it wasn't an overwhelming majority. It doesn't take that much effort on my part, so I will leave them in. Smaller exhibit fish (smaller than dwarf caiman) will be excluded. Big swimming things have consistently gone in habitats, and small flying things have consistently gone in exhibits. I think that is fair enough, and I don't really care if some people want to vote for orcas and whatnot. I don't think they are likely additions, but it makes some people happy.
2. Most people wanted to keep the mammalian size restrictions about the same. Anything much smaller than a tamarin will be excluded. For non-mammals, the things that have consistently gone into exhibits will continue to be excluded (small lizards, insects and other small invertebrates, small turtles, snakes, sloths, etc.). The point of this list is to focus on habitat animals people would like to see, not challenge Frontier's decisions about what is a habitat animal.
3. I haven't received much feedback on the other points, so I will keep doing that as I have.
4. I'm probably going to start taking note of takin subspecies in the votes now because it has risen in the ranks. If it works out, I may also group domestic breeds by species.

 

[Marvinb]

Still thinks its weird to allow aquariums but not aviaries, but you the captain of this ship

 

[Villanelle]

Thanks for all your work on this @SuzieSky - very generous of you.

 

[Fallax]

When will submissions for the wishlist start? I ask because it started late 2022 last year.