New 25 essential habitat animals META-WISHLIST

[avietar]

Yes, because next dlc can potentially allow flying birds in lists.

Inclusion of birds might alter the list a lot, that's true. But it might also very well be that IF we get an aviary DLC, we'll only get birds in that one DLC and not in following DLCs.

But I was thinking more along the lines that many people's desired animals have been added to the game in the form of the NA DLC and the upcoming DLC (probably), which could result in a very different new list. I know that my list certainly has changed since I submitted one for this thread many months ago. It would be pretty different, with lots of animals switched and replaced.

 

[random goat]

There will most likely be a new one around Xmas, after the next DLC. Considering there should be at least 4 more DLCs after Xmas, that could potentially mean 20-25 more habitat animals (let's say we get two more animal packs and two more scenery packs = 22 habitat animals). I might go for 25 animals then. And aviary birds are obviously on the radar.

I'm also re-thinking the whole grouping and category issue, but honestly I still think the best solution is going by the scientific animal species category (with the exception of subspecies of already in-game animals + domestic breeds). Any other 'animal group' category might be too artificial and not scientifically accurate.
This being said, I might allow votes for broader, more generic animal categories next time, but those votes would go to an additional 'generic animals' list. Another option is not tallying the 'generic votes' (eg. lynx) until I'm finished with the list and then adding them to the most requested species (eg. Eurasian lynx) within that 'generic animal group' (eg. lynx) instead of doing it 'on the go'. The downside of this is that it might take another 6 months to get the next iteration finished (so we reach a decent sample size) and until then all the 'generic votes' would be missing, hence there would be missing information that should be very precious given that PZ devs work way ahead of time. I don't really see how a new final version of the meta-wishlist would be useful in June 2022 if support doesn't go beyond Xmas 2022.

 

[Arator]

I don't really see how a new final version of the meta-wishlist would be useful in June 2022

For Planet Zoo 2?

 

[nutrit]

My only concern with creating new list is that a lot of people who participated once won’t be interested in doing it again or won’t even know about a new list. A lot of people logged on this forum just to post their lists and they are not active members of the community

 

[Firestar97]

For Planet Zoo 2?

I hope they'll do it like with Jurassic World Evolution 2 and include all (or at least almost all?) of the Animals from the previous Game. It would be so awesome

 

[Doran]

I hope they'll do it like with Jurassic World Evolution 2 and include all (or at least almost all?) of the Animals from the previous Game. It would be so awesome

Actually for some weird reason huayangasaur is in deluxe edition. No one know why this particular dinosaur.

 

[Firestar97]

Actually for some weird reason huayangasaur is in deluxe edition. No one know why this particular dinosaur.

But it's in the Game
Isn't Majungasaurus this Time in the Game outside of the Deluxe Edition?
Is there a Species from the first Game that isn't in the second one at all?

 

[Doran]

But it's in the Game
Isn't Majungasaurus this Time in the Game outside of the Deluxe Edition?
Is there a Species from the first Game that isn't in the second one at all?

Spinoraptor, Stegocetops and Ankylodocus are cut for thematic reasons.

 

[12344321]

There will most likely be a new one around Xmas, after the next DLC. Considering there should be at least 4 more DLCs after Xmas, that could potentially mean 20-25 more habitat animals (let's say we get two more animal packs and two more scenery packs = 22 habitat animals). I might go for 25 animals then. And aviary birds are obviously on the radar.

I'm also re-thinking the whole grouping and category issue, but honestly I still think the best solution is going by the scientific animal species category (with the exception of subspecies of already in-game animals + domestic breeds). Any other 'animal group' category might be too artificial and not scientifically accurate.
This being said, I might allow votes for broader, more generic animal categories next time, but those votes would go to an additional 'generic animals' list. Another option is not tallying the 'generic votes' (eg. lynx) until I'm finished with the list and then adding them to the most requested species (eg. Eurasian lynx) within that 'generic animal group' (eg. lynx) instead of doing it 'on the go'. The downside of this is that it might take another 6 months to get the next iteration finished (so we reach a decent sample size) and until then all the 'generic votes' would be missing, hence there would be missing information that should be very precious given that PZ devs work way ahead of time. I don't really see how a new final version of the meta-wishlist would be useful in June 2022 if support doesn't go beyond Xmas 2022.

My two cents. Don't mess with a good thing.

If it's not broken Don't fix it. I like how you have the animals grouped now. That being said it's up to your decision. The original post is from December 2020, and a year later the format doesn't need to be changed (in fact there's been a resurgence of people submitting lists lately)

 

[Dino Mickey]

I hope they'll do it like with Jurassic World Evolution 2 and include all (or at least almost all?) of the Animals from the previous Game. It would be so awesome

No, no more sequels, let's get everything in one game this time around

 

[Firestar97]

No, no more sequels, let's get everything in one game this time around

But they could probably do Things that aren't possible in the current Game. For Example the more natural and fluid Animations in Jurassic World Evolution 2. It would be a Shame to not use this awesome System again

 

[Dino Mickey]

But they could probably do Things that aren't possible in the current Game. For Example the more natural and fluid Animations in Jurassic World Evolution 2. It would be a Shame to not use this awesome System again

They can, they just don't want, they updated the engine in 1.6 (that's why it broke all mods) meaning they can, they just don't want or don't want as for now; also as much money as PZ makes I don't think it would be profitable to make a sequel

 

[random goat]

My only concern with creating new list is that a lot of people who participated once won’t be interested in doing it again or won’t even know about a new list. A lot of people logged on this forum just to post their lists and they are not active members of the community

This is tottally true. And it sort of worries me a bit. I highly doubt a new meta-wishlist thread will reach such a high number of participants (close to 300 right now).
That's why I'm considering other options and re-thinking the categorization method.

My two cents. Don't mess with a good thing.

If it's not broken Don't fix it. I like how you have the animals grouped now. That being said it's up to your decision. The original post is from December 2020, and a year later the format doesn't need to be changed (in fact there's been a resurgence of people submitting lists lately)

I agree with you. In my opinion it's not broken. But it's true that quite some people have asked for a list with broader animal groups like lynx, gazelle, gibbon, etc. Another important reason why I might give this a shot is because of what @nutrit wrote above. I doubt a new wishlist will become as successful and meaningful as this one.
The problem I see with moving from scientific species to 'animal groups' is how do you define an 'animal group', or essentially where do you draw the line to make two animals fall into different groups.
Example 1: Some people might think grouping all the gibbons (Hylobatidae family) under a generic 'gibbon' group is what should be done because they don't care what gibbon they'd get and therefore the 'gibbon' would be higher on the list. But then we have other people who don't agree to group all the gibbons because they want a very specific species (eg. siamang). On top of that, there are people who, given the chance to choose 20 animals, they'd include 2 or even 3 gibbon species there. This would pretty much ruin the purpose of grouping species.
Imagine the above example applied to dozens of groups of other animals. People can think differently about grouping gazelles, lynxes, rodents, cervids, etc.
Example 2: Some people might think the capybara (one species) is unique enough that deserves to be grouped apart from any other rodents or members of the Caviidae family. Wouldn't this involve treating other speices which are grouped into broader categories (eg. gibbon) unfairly? What exactly would make certain animals belong to an artificial group of several species or be the only species within their artificial group? From the moment you deviate from the scientific consensus about categorizing animals, problems arise for every particular animal.

 

[yoav_r]

Spinoraptor, Stegocetops and Ankylodocus are cut for thematic reasons.

And that's a good thing. Some things are better unrendered

 

[yoav_r]

My only concern with creating new list is that a lot of people who participated once won’t be interested in doing it again or won’t even know about a new list. A lot of people logged on this forum just to post their lists and they are not active members of the community

This is tottally true. And it sort of worries me a bit. I highly doubt a new meta-wishlist thread will reach such a high number of participants (close to 300 right now).
That's why I'm considering other options and re-thinking the categorization method.

To be fair, this list was advertised a lot on other platforms like reddit and discord. It could be advertised again.

 

[Aramar]

@random goat One idea could be that you keep the same model for the list as it is now, but you add a section with the top 10 and there you include the animals grouped by kind of animal. For example, in the normal list yoy keep the Eurasian and Iberian lynx separated with their respective order in the ranking, but then in the top 10 section you put just lynx, because both lynx combine rank #3 or 4 in the list. There are very few animals that combined would rank so high to be in the top 10, so it shouldn't be much extra work.

 

[DarthQuell]

Example 1: Some people might think grouping all the gibbons (Hylobatidae family) under a generic 'gibbon' group is what should be done because they don't care what gibbon they'd get and therefore the 'gibbon' would be higher on the list. But then we have other people who don't agree to group all the gibbons because they want a very specific species (eg. siamang). On top of that, there are people who, given the chance to choose 20 animals, they'd include 2 or even 3 gibbon species there. This would pretty much ruin the purpose of grouping species.
Imagine the above example applied to dozens of groups of other animals. People can think differently about grouping gazelles, lynxes, rodents, cervids, etc.

Yeah. I'm grouping them altogether, but then I have, like, Testudo genus tortoises together. Classifying aninals between genus/species/subspecies, it's too confusing sometimes

And that's a good thing. Some things are better unrendered

Although the Stegoceratops was actually in a JW deleted scene. And I liked the spinoraptor (much better then Ludia's, I might add)

 

[12344321]

This is tottally true. And it sort of worries me a bit. I highly doubt a new meta-wishlist thread will reach such a high number of participants (close to 300 right now).
That's why I'm considering other options and re-thinking the categorization method.

I agree with you. In my opinion it's not broken. But it's true that quite some people have asked for a list with broader animal groups like lynx, gazelle, gibbon, etc. Another important reason why I might give this a shot is because of what @nutrit wrote above. I doubt a new wishlist will become as successful and meaningful as this one.
The problem I see with moving from scientific species to 'animal groups' is how do you define an 'animal group', or essentially where do you draw the line to make two animals fall into different groups.
Example 1: Some people might think grouping all the gibbons (Hylobatidae family) under a generic 'gibbon' group is what should be done because they don't care what gibbon they'd get and therefore the 'gibbon' would be higher on the list. But then we have other people who don't agree to group all the gibbons because they want a very specific species (eg. siamang). On top of that, there are people who, given the chance to choose 20 animals, they'd include 2 or even 3 gibbon species there. This would pretty much ruin the purpose of grouping species.
Imagine the above example applied to dozens of groups of other animals. People can think differently about grouping gazelles, lynxes, rodents, cervids, etc.
Example 2: Some people might think the capybara (one species) is unique enough that deserves to be grouped apart from any other rodents or members of the Caviidae family. Wouldn't this involve treating other speices which are grouped into broader categories (eg. gibbon) unfairly? What exactly would make certain animals belong to an artificial group of several species or be the only species within their artificial group? From the moment you deviate from the scientific consensus about categorizing animals, problems arise for every particular animal.

Keep it scientific

If people don't like it tell them to read more.

 

[SanRazo618]

Keep the same list and keep it scientific.

 

[nutrit]

I don’t really see the reason to create the new list I think we should stick to the one that we already have because it’s working