Cool. Thanks for the info and good luckDon't expect an update soon. The last phase of PhD is exhausting and the last thing I want to do is feel forced to work on something else![]()

Cool. Thanks for the info and good luckDon't expect an update soon. The last phase of PhD is exhausting and the last thing I want to do is feel forced to work on something else![]()
Good luck.Don't expect an update soon. The last phase of PhD is exhausting and the last thing I want to do is feel forced to work on something else![]()
Ooh. Is this to do with gut health? Sounds interesting!Basically improving rumen microbial development in young domestic goats in intensive dairy systems!
Nope, I wasn't referring to several entries being merged into one larger aggregate entity. That additional list is indeed very beneficial, but I was referring to the breakdown of each separate row for each individual species. random goat actually understood what I was talking about.It is already done. Under the meta list there is another green Button called general animal list. There you can find some animals summarized.
Yes, something along those lines. The Sloth was just an examples of course, what I am trying to explain is for every animal on the list that receives generalized votes. Here's an example chart below to help explain the idea better:From what I understand you want to know, out of the 97 votes allocated to 'Brown-Throated Three-Toed Sloth', how many come from people wanting that specific species or just a standard 'sloth'. And the same for other animals.
Well, unfortunately I don't have any info about that. Whenever I see 'Sloth', 'Sloth (any species)' or anything of the sort I just automatically add a vote to the most popular sloth species at that very moment.
I know that this could have skewed the votes in the very beginning to species that were more voted first while in reality other species within the same group are as popular. I remember the Iberian lynx was more voted than the Eurasian lynx so it got some of the generic votes in the beginning; then things turned around. I think something similar happened to the tree kangaroos.
In the specific case of the Brown-throated three-toed sloth, I can estimate, from the top of my head, that around 50% of the votes were for the specific species and the other 50 % were for a generic 'sloth'. In the case of Goodfellow's tree kangaroo, probably 60-70% of the votes were actually for a generic 'tree kangaroo'.
15 | Brown-Throated Three-Toed Sloth (BTTTS [42]); (Three Toed Sloth, Any [8]); (Indifferent/Sloth, Any [47]) | 97 | 26.87 |
Hamadryas Baboon (HB [96]); (Indifferent/Baboon, Any [1]) | 97 | 26.87 | |
19 | Walrus (Pacific [8]); (Atlantic [3]); (Indifferent/Any [82]) | 93 | 25.76 |
20 | Goodfellow’s Tree Kangaroo (GTK [32]); (Indifferent/Tree Kangaroo, Any [60]) | 92 | 25.48 |
South American Coati (SAC [52]); (Indifferent/Coati, Any [40]) | 92 | 25.48 | |
22 | Black Howler Monkey (BHM [32]); (Indifferent/Howler Monkey, Any [53]) | 85 | 23.55 |
It is related. It's about improving the transition from consuming milk to consuming solid feed, which definetely affects gut health and efficiency.Ooh. Is this to do with gut health? Sounds interesting!
Thanks Reptomin. Yeah it could be done in this one but it would require going through every list again (not gonna happen sorry). Something to consider for a potential future list.Nope, I wasn't referring to several entries being merged into one larger aggregate entity. That additional list is indeed very beneficial, but I was referring to the breakdown of each separate row for each individual species. random goat actually understood what I was talking about.
Yes, something along those lines. The Sloth was just an examples of course, what I am trying to explain is for every animal on the list that receives generalized votes. Here's an example chart below to help explain the idea better:
15 Brown-Throated Three-Toed Sloth (BTTTS [42]); (Three Toed Sloth, Any [8]); (Indifferent/Sloth, Any [47]) 97 26.87 Hamadryas Baboon (HB [96]); (Indifferent/Baboon, Any [1]) 97 26.87 19 Walrus (Pacific [8]); (Atlantic [3]); (Indifferent/Any [82]) 93 25.76 20 Goodfellow’s Tree Kangaroo (GTK [32]); (Indifferent/Tree Kangaroo, Any [60]) 92 25.48 South American Coati (SAC [52]); (Indifferent/Coati, Any [40]) 92 25.48 22 Black Howler Monkey (BHM [32]); (Indifferent/Howler Monkey, Any [53]) 85 23.55
By the way, the figures are completely made up, they are there to give an idea.
I believe implementing such an idea would be very difficult for an old list like this, as it would require going though hundreds of old submissions, but perhaps you could consider adding this detail to your next iteration of the thread. Would be helpful in understanding the scope of votes.
Further subspecies information can be added there too, similar to the Leopard. Used the Walrus as an example.
Good luck on your PhD, goat, there is no hurry for this suggestion. You could perhaps think about it for the next thread.
Yes, figured myself it would be very difficult for this thread, so wasn't expecting it to be implemented for now. Could be a possibility for the next one if you are interested.It is related. It's about improving the transition from consuming milk to consuming solid feed, which definetely affects gut health and efficiency.
Thanks Reptomin. Yeah it could be done in this one but it would require going through every list again (not gonna happen sorry). Something to consider for a potential future list.
15 | Brown-Throated Three-Toed Sloth (Three Toed Sloth, Any [8]); (Indifferent [47]) | 97 | 26.87 |
Hamadryas Baboon (Indifferent [1]) | 97 | 26.87 | |
19 | Walrus (Pacific [8]); (Atlantic [3]); (Indifferent [82]) | 93 | 25.76 |
20 | Goodfellow’s Tree Kangaroo (Indifferent [60]) | 92 | 25.48 |
South American Coati (Indifferent [40]) | 92 | 25.48 | |
22 | Black Howler Monkey (Indifferent [53]) | 85 | 23.55 |
I do not know if they are doing so or if the species which came within the last packs were planned a longer time ago but I have to say that a Lot of species we got delivered were high on the wishlist. Plus some surprise species like the prairie dog or perhaps the badger. But I must say it is okay to get also some lower voted species because of the "surprise moment". I think for a company it is always good to listen to their customers regarding the selling numbers of the DLC. But on the other hand Planet Zoo is the game of Frontier and if the developers want to make an animal which is lower ranked in the list they also have every right to do that in my opinion.I am just wondering are Frontier even considering our choice?
I think it's been a significant factor since the Africa Pack, but not the only factor (feasibility, marketability to normal consumers, and commonness in real zoos are also considered). The Africa Pack included three very popular wishlist animals (meerkat, rhino, fennec fox) and one with a lower vote total but which is very common in real-life zoos (African penguin). The North America Pack was almost certainly influenced by the wishlist--five of its animals were in the top 10 of the wishlist (moose, sea lion, cougar, alligator, beaver)--for the other two, the prairie dog is another extremely common zoo animal and--pet theory incoming--the Arctic fox might have been previously planned for the Arctic pack, scrapped, and then brought back to life. For Europe, the ibex and lynx were both pretty high up, though they did go with the fallow deer over the more popular red deer.I am just wondering are Frontier even considering our choice?
Honestly I doubt it. They wouldn't start an Arctic fox and then give us a minimal-effort Arctic wolf instead.the Arctic fox might have been previously planned for the Arctic pack, scrapped, and then brought back to life.
It's common in game dev--they just start something new but are strapped for time and churn out a clone animal instead (albeit one which is better-looking than the original).Honestly I doubt it. They wouldn't start an Arctic fox and then give us a minimal-effort Arctic wolf instead.
The Arctic fox didn't feature highly on the meta-wishlist but it was highly-requested ever since before the Arctic Pack was announced. The wolf threw everyone through a bit of a loop, because nobody expected something that low-effort compared to the other animals which, at the time, were pretty supreme. The wolf has grown on us as a community, it seems, but the Arctic fox was always listed as "what should have been". So I think including it was just Frontier throwing a bone in that direction.
Arctic Fox and Prairie dog were both on the list as well, and AFAIK all the Europe animals were also on the list. Overall the last few packs all had the majority if not all of their animals from the wishlist. Not really surprising as this list is pretty much free market research at this pointI think it's been a significant factor since the Africa Pack, but not the only factor (feasibility, marketability to normal consumers, and commonness in real zoos are also considered). The Africa Pack included three very popular wishlist animals (meerkat, rhino, fennec fox) and one with a lower vote total but which is very common in real-life zoos (African penguin). The North America Pack was almost certainly influenced by the wishlist--five of its animals were in the top 10 of the wishlist (moose, sea lion, cougar, alligator, beaver)--for the other two, the prairie dog is another extremely common zoo animal and--pet theory incoming--the Arctic fox might have been previously planned for the Arctic pack, scrapped, and then brought back to life. For Europe, the ibex and lynx were both pretty high up, though they did go with the fallow deer over the more popular red deer.
They were on the list, but not particularly high. If they had gone purely by "top 7 North American animals" we would have gotten a wolverine instead.Arctic Fox and Prairie dog were both on the list as well, and AFAIK all the Europe animals were also on the list. Overall the last few packs all had the majority if not all of their animals from the wishlist. Not really surprising as this list is pretty much free market research at this point![]()
Oh yeah, that's why I posted that. It isn't just the ones that are high up the list that make a chance, any animal on the list has a pretty decent chance to get in a next DLC.They were on the list, but not particularly high. If they had gone purely by "top 7 North American animals" we would have gotten a wolverine instead.
You have the Golden Snub nosed Monkey twice on your List
- Indian crested porcupine.
- Linnaeus's two-toed sloth.
- Matschie's tree kangaroo.
- White-nosed coati.
- Patagonian mara.
- Short-beaked echidna.
- Bat-eared fox.
- Azara's agouti.
- Bush dog.
- Three-banded armadillo.
- Golden snub-nosed monkey.
- Kirk's dik-dik.
- Golden pheasant.
- African spurred tortoise.
- Cotton-top tamarin.
- Southern tamandua.
- Pallas's cat.
- Yellow-throated marten.
- Raccoon dog.
- Fishing cat.
- African civet.
- Quokka.
- Golden snub-nosed monkey.
- De Brazza's monkey.
- Kinkajou.
you can submit another 5!Here's mine whenever you get the chance to update the list:
1. Platypus
2. Red fox
3. Emu
4. Grey crowned Crane
5. North Island Brown Kiwi
6. Raccoon
7. Sugar Glider
8. Beaver
9. Walrus
10. Eurasian red Squirrel
11. Sloth
12. Wild Turkey
13. Adele Penguin
14. Emperor Penguin
15. Tree kangaroo
16. Sea turtle
17. Gibbon
18. Numbat
19. Echidna
20. Swan (white and black versions)
Technically only 4 because black and white Swans are separate Speciesyou can submit another 5!![]()