Since the release of the Beta there has been a public outcry that time moves too quickly. Animals reproduce, age, and die too quickly for immersive gameplay in the opinion of many players. Other consequences of the rapid passage of time include the accumulation of manure, depletion of feeders, and inability of the keepers to keep up with feeding or cleaning habitats. Frontier has finally responded by allowing animal aging but not time to be slowed.
I would love an explanation from the developers as to why they choose this "fix" to the problem. To me it is a rather baffling solution. Why go to all of the trouble of making realistic animal, including real stats, including longevity, in the zoopedia, and then totally disjoint animal aging from the in-game clock? I would understand better if there was not already a speed slider in the game, but since that mechanic is already there I can't imagine it is that much different to allow players to slow time 3X, when we can already speed time 3X.
While I appreciate that Frontier is listening to us, this "fix" feels more like a poorly coded mod I would expect from a third party not the game developer. I would like my animal age to be in line with the zoo. And I feel that an overall slower passage of time would fit the game better. It seems like by the time most zoos are established with 6+ exhibits they are 100+ yrs old which is silly. The notoriously inefficient keepers can't seem to manage visiting exhibits even once a month which is just ridiculous; animals require not just daily care, but multiple interactions daily. Visitors can end up spending years in the park. The developers did a beautiful job, and obviously put lots of love into developing weather in-game, but we can't even appreciate seasons because an entire year passes in minutes. So why did Frontier choose to slow down animal's biologic clock independent of the in-game clock?
What do others players think? Do you think this was an appropriate "fix"? Does Frontier's solution solve everyone's time concerns?
I would love an explanation from the developers as to why they choose this "fix" to the problem. To me it is a rather baffling solution. Why go to all of the trouble of making realistic animal, including real stats, including longevity, in the zoopedia, and then totally disjoint animal aging from the in-game clock? I would understand better if there was not already a speed slider in the game, but since that mechanic is already there I can't imagine it is that much different to allow players to slow time 3X, when we can already speed time 3X.
While I appreciate that Frontier is listening to us, this "fix" feels more like a poorly coded mod I would expect from a third party not the game developer. I would like my animal age to be in line with the zoo. And I feel that an overall slower passage of time would fit the game better. It seems like by the time most zoos are established with 6+ exhibits they are 100+ yrs old which is silly. The notoriously inefficient keepers can't seem to manage visiting exhibits even once a month which is just ridiculous; animals require not just daily care, but multiple interactions daily. Visitors can end up spending years in the park. The developers did a beautiful job, and obviously put lots of love into developing weather in-game, but we can't even appreciate seasons because an entire year passes in minutes. So why did Frontier choose to slow down animal's biologic clock independent of the in-game clock?
What do others players think? Do you think this was an appropriate "fix"? Does Frontier's solution solve everyone's time concerns?
and no it's not a proper solution to me - I'm really confused about a lot of things too and it's not just animal aging. The whole game is pretty unbalanced by this current light speed.