Animals with too small Group-Size

[xTosca]

With wolves specifically it is the case that they will fight when you put another wolf in the enclosure of an established pair.
So it makes sense if you consider wolf behavior regarding "unrelated" individuals.
The game AI has currently no function to differentiate between family-related and unrelated individuals.
Nor does it have a function to consider the time it takes to form a pack.

So this does cost a lot of extra work and changes to the AI-system.
They already announced that they are working on the AI(more positive behaviors etc.), but it will take time.

This statement is somewhat false. The game DOES differentiate between family and non-family via the inbreeding mechanic. If you compare mates, there will be warnings next to any animal the animal is related to. Considering the game DOES distinguish family from non-family, it really isn't that much of a stretch to include a few lines of code in wolf behavior that says family = friendly, do not fight, and stranger = hostile.

All they really have to do is remove the hard group limit on wolves, so that they do not fight due to ""overcrowding"", specifically, and instead add a behavior clause that states if there are more than 2 wolves in a habitat, or in the case of 2, both are same sex, the wolves will begin to fight any wolf not family related, regardless of sex.(i.e. 'alpha female' can attack a stranger male, instead of the male having to do it, but if the only 2 wolves in a habitat are male and unrelated they will fight.)

...Also, the alpha system needs to be completely removed from wolves entirely because it was proven to be false by the exact same scientist who came up with it, and wolves raised in a proper and non-artificial pack(i.e. family group, not a bunch of unrelated wolves thrown together) absolutely do not fight for dominance at all whatsoever, this has been repeatedly observed by researchers and scientists observing wolf packs for years in the wild.

I can understand keeping the ""alpha tag"" as an identifier of the main breeding pair, just so that the rest of the pack cannot breed unless the breeding pair is replaced, but the whole "fighting for alpha" thing needs to go.

They could also just make it so that wolves will not inbreed, period, because wolves don't actually inbreed. It's instinctive. Wolves will not mate within the pack they are born into, therefore even without alpha tag they could make it so that wolves simply don't inbreed and thus only the parents, the main breeding pair, will continue to breed.

 

[Silhouette]

They could also just make it so that wolves will not inbreed, period, because wolves don't actually inbreed. It's instinctive. Wolves will not mate within the pack they are born into, therefore even without alpha tag they could make it so that wolves simply don't inbreed and thus only the parents, the main breeding pair, will continue to breed.

Not to mention wolves are monogamous and breed for life, so if a parent did breed with a child, it's immediately just throwing away the fact that wolf had a mate to begin with and that in itself is unrealistic/annoying

 

[xTosca]

Not to mention wolves are monogamous and breed for life, so if a parent did breed with a child, it's immediately just throwing away the fact that wolf had a mate to begin with and that in itself is unrealistic/annoying

This too!

 

[Aero-Bubbles]

Some things I’m gonna point out that aren’t exactly... accurate..

Yes, cheetah males have been know to live in groups, but there has never been a group of 15 males in the wild typically it’s 2-3. Even 5 together is rare to say the least. And I highly doubt there’s a zoo holding 15 males together that would be a complete train wreck as 1) male groups are made up of siblings that leave their mother at the same time, cheetahs don’t have that many babies at time, in a litter of 5, she’s lucky if 1 survives 2) The amount of space you would have to have to house that many cats together xD

As for animals like tigers, uh it solely depends on the animal, tigers are solitary and putting them together is generally a big no no, and you’d be asking for a fight. Tigers living in harmony with each other is rare. Even with lions, they are by nature not social, they would have needed to be raised together as cubs, so placing a tiger in a lion exhibit and a fight occurring is 100% accurate. Can tigers live with lions or other tigers? Absolutely, but it depends on the animal. Even some breeding pairs can’t always be housed together. You don’t have to put tigers and lions together for the critically unhealthy cash grab of ligers or tigons. Artificial insemination is mostly how it’s achieved....

Male lions will absolutely fight in captivity if held together with females. This is why, in a lot of zoos, there is one lion among 2-3 lionesses. Even in the wild, a male lion may live with his 2 brothers, however they aren’t confined and should a fight happen, one animal can leave. Males that live together in prides are related. So putting 2 unrelated males together, you’re gonna have a fight. However if we could keep say brothers together that would be nice

Zoo tycoon 2 got a lot of animal social requirements wrong, sorry. Animals fight over more than just space in real life zoos. All of Zoo tycoons animal social requirements were wrong, come to think of it...

 

[xTosca]

Some things I’m gonna point out that aren’t exactly... accurate..

Yes, cheetah males have been know to live in groups, but there has never been a group of 15 males in the wild typically it’s 2-3. Even 5 together is rare to say the least. And I highly doubt there’s a zoo holding 15 males together that would be a complete train wreck as 1) male groups are made up of siblings that leave their mother at the same time, cheetahs don’t have that many babies at time, in a litter of 5, she’s lucky if 1 survives 2) The amount of space you would have to have to house that many cats together xD

As for animals like tigers, uh it solely depends on the animal, tigers are solitary and putting them together is generally a big no no, and you’d be asking for a fight. Tigers living in harmony with each other is rare. Even with lions, they are by nature not social, they would have needed to be raised together as cubs, so placing a tiger in a lion exhibit and a fight occurring is 100% accurate. Can tigers live with lions or other tigers? Absolutely, but it depends on the animal. Even some breeding pairs can’t always be housed together. You don’t have to put tigers and lions together for the critically unhealthy cash grab of ligers or tigons. Artificial insemination is mostly how it’s achieved....

Male lions will absolutely fight in captivity if held together with females. This is why, in a lot of zoos, there is one lion among 2-3 lionesses. Even in the wild, a male lion may live with his 2 brothers, however they aren’t confined and should a fight happen, one animal can leave. Males that live together in prides are related. So putting 2 unrelated males together, you’re gonna have a fight. However if we could keep say brothers together that would be nice

Zoo tycoon 2 got a lot of animal social requirements wrong, sorry. Animals fight over more than just space in real life zoos. All of Zoo tycoons animal social requirements were wrong, come to think of it...

On the tigers...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0IhTsElA80


Yes, obviously, if you throw in a bunch of tigers in with random strangers, fights are going to break out- however, the fact is, it IS still possible to keep tigers together peacefully, ESPECIALLY if you give them a ton of wide open space. Sure, they may need to be related, but it can still happen, and that's the point- groups shouldn't be based solely on some arbitrary number value, but instead on more realistic factors such as: are the animals related, is there enough space in the enclosure, did these animals grow up together as babies, etc...

Another thing that gets me is the fact that animals in this game don't actually have relationships toward eachother at all despite the fact animals do in fact form bonds and relationships in real life- even solitary animals, if raised in captivity with another animal, can form bonds and friendships, and at the very least, a like/dislike of the other animal.

It's just... as soon as the max number cap hits, suddenly animals are turning on and killing eachother. It's impossible to house two males of some species together even if raised together, because as soon as they grow up, it's just other male = enemy.

For a game that touts on about how realistic, lifelike, and individual the animals are, no individual animals really seem to have any semblance of unique personality, likes or dislikes that might differ from another individual, or relationships with others in their habitat.

Besides just basing max number in groups on space, they honestly really need to just completely rework the social aspect of the game in its entirety, from the ground up, because right now it's a broken system and the animals all act like robots, all exactly alike.

Things would work out a lot smoother, and the animals would feel much more lifelike if they even so much as added a basic relationship system between animals- i.e. animal A spends enough time with Animal B that they are considered 'friends' and are friendly toward eachother. Animals meeting certain requirements(such as being the only male and female in an enclosure for things like tigers) start at neutral relationship levels, new added strangers for a territorial or solitary species can start at a hostile level and fight, however with enough time may come to accept eachother, which is exactly how real animals work.

Anyone who's ever adopted a new cat into a house full of existing cats knows this good and well. Cats HATE new strangers in their territory- but given enough time, they eventually chill out and even befriend the new cat.

And hell- they could take it a step further and handle it the way Sims 4 handles pet relationships.(you can't actually SEE pet relationships and how they work without a mod to view that information, but I do have said mod and it's a decent system). i.e. Animal A can like Animal B, but Animal B can dislike Animal A, making relationships not always mutual.

And with that, instead of arbitrary number values, the ability for animals to be housed with others would depend on multiple factors: species temperament(solitary or group, territorial or not, etc), gender of the individuals in the case of being aggressive to same-sex, space in the habitat, and relationship to individual other animals. Some animals could be harder to "group" than others, being more hostile to strangers, but if, say, a tiger happens to have a high relationship level with another tiger of the same sex, be it from being raised together as cubs or whatever, they could live together peacefully, but if you introduce a stranger, suddenly that stranger is being harassed by the existing tigers.

I also think individual animals should have unique personalities such as friendlier disposition, laziness, more active, or so on, but I think I'll save that particular bit for a suggestion post...

 

[Silhouette]

On the tigers...

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A0IhTsElA80


Yes, obviously, if you throw in a bunch of tigers in with random strangers, fights are going to break out- however, the fact is, it IS still possible to keep tigers together peacefully, ESPECIALLY if you give them a poopoo ton of wide open space. Sure, they may need to be related, but it can still happen, and that's the point- groups shouldn't be based solely on some arbitrary number value, but instead on more realistic factors such as: are the animals related, is there enough space in the enclosure, did these animals grow up together as babies, etc...

Another thing that gets me is the fact that animals in this game don't actually have relationships toward eachother at all despite the fact animals do in fact form bonds and relationships in real life- even solitary animals, if raised in captivity with another animal, can form bonds and friendships, and at the very least, a like/dislike of the other animal.

It's just... as soon as the max number cap hits, suddenly animals are turning on and killing eachother. It's impossible to house two males of some species together even if raised together, because as soon as they grow up, it's just other male = enemy.

For a game that touts on about how realistic, lifelike, and individual the animals are, no individual animals really seem to have any semblance of unique personality, likes or dislikes that might differ from another individual, or relationships with others in their habitat.

Besides just basing max number in groups on space, they honestly really need to just completely rework the social aspect of the game in its entirety, from the ground up, because right now it's a broken system and the animals all act like robots, all exactly alike.

Things would work out a lot smoother, and the animals would feel much more lifelike if they even so much as added a basic relationship system between animals- i.e. animal A spends enough time with Animal B that they are considered 'friends' and are friendly toward eachother. Animals meeting certain requirements(such as being the only male and female in an enclosure for things like tigers) start at neutral relationship levels, new added strangers for a territorial or solitary species can start at a hostile level and fight, however with enough time may come to accept eachother, which is exactly how real animals work.

Anyone who's ever adopted a new cat into a house full of existing cats knows this good and well. Cats HATE new strangers in their territory- but given enough time, they eventually chill out and even befriend the new cat.

And hell- they could take it a step further and handle it the way Sims 4 handles pet relationships.(you can't actually SEE pet relationships and how they work without a mod to view that information, but I do have said mod and it's a decent system). i.e. Animal A can like Animal B, but Animal B can dislike Animal A, making relationships not always mutual.

And with that, instead of arbitrary number values, the ability for animals to be housed with others would depend on multiple factors: species temperament(solitary or group, territorial or not, etc), gender of the individuals in the case of being aggressive to same-sex, space in the habitat, and relationship to individual other animals. Some animals could be harder to "group" than others, being more hostile to strangers, but if, say, a tiger happens to have a high relationship level with another tiger of the same sex, be it from being raised together as cubs or whatever, they could live together peacefully, but if you introduce a stranger, suddenly that stranger is being harassed by the existing tigers.

I also think individual animals should have unique personalities such as friendlier disposition, laziness, more active, or so on, but I think I'll save that particular bit for a suggestion post...

This is a really good post, thank you

I agree there's a lot more they could do with the social system. Would it be time consuming to implement? Absolutely, but I personally would be okay with delaying DLC so that we could get a more complex social structure instead.

To add on to your comment about animals growing up together: I know this is more of a long shot, but it would be cool if species could intermix this way as well.

I forget the exact story, some of you may remember, but there was a baby tiger, lion, and bear that were rescued by a zoo from I think it was an ill-equipped owner? Either way, because they had been together practically since birth, they were actually all able to coexist together. That stuff could be cool, and I feel like it wouldn't be too difficult to implement? Would essentially just run a system that checks how long they were in the same habitat together when they were young or something. Probably not worthwhile to add in the game but, yeah.

EDIT: Also in terms of family I think it's the Columbus Zoo (?) that houses two sister polar bears. They were even able to introduce a male and the 3 were fine. But unfortunately you can't do that in this game and it's a real, real shame. Just adds to the feeling of it being a "puppy mill" because there's no reason to keep families together. Actually in most cases you just can't

 

[xTosca]

This is a really good post, thank you

I agree there's a lot more they could do with the social system. Would it be time consuming to implement? Absolutely, but I personally would be okay with delaying DLC so that we could get a more complex social structure instead.

To add on to your comment about animals growing up together: I know this is more of a long shot, but it would be cool if species could intermix this way as well.

I forget the exact story, some of you may remember, but there was a baby tiger, lion, and bear that were rescued by a zoo from I think it was an ill-equipped owner? Either way, because they had been together practically since birth, they were actually all able to coexist together. That stuff could be cool, and I feel like it wouldn't be too difficult to implement? Would essentially just run a system that checks how long they were in the same habitat together when they were young or something. Probably not worthwhile to add in the game but, yeah.

EDIT: Also in terms of family I think it's the Columbus Zoo (?) that houses two sister polar bears. They were even able to introduce a male and the 3 were fine. But unfortunately you can't do that in this game and it's a real, real shame. Just adds to the feeling of it being a "puppy mill" because there's no reason to keep families together. Actually in most cases you just can't

Agreed with all of this, plus the DLC thing. Honestly, I don't think anyone should even be /considering/ DLC until all the major issues with the game's current bugs and systems are fixed and improved on. We can wait for new animals and maps and scenarios and whatnot, improving the current system and reworking the serious flaws is way more important.

 

[Crea_TivELA]

I just looked at the achievements (Steam/Planet Zoo) ... there is an achievement where 30 animals should be kept in an enclosure with a satisfaction of 75% ... that's very surprising and makes me confident there will be changes.
Thought I'll let you know quickly.

 

[Firestar97]

I just looked at the achievements (Steam/Planet Zoo) ... there is an achievement where 30 animals should be kept in an enclosure with a satisfaction of 75% ... that's very surprising and makes me confident there will be changes.
Thought I'll let you know quickly.

I think this don't mean Animals of the same Species. Also it would be possible with Flamingos because they have a realistic Group-Size

 

[Crea_TivELA]

I think this don't mean Animals of the same Species. Also it would be possible with Flamingos because they have a realistic Group-Size

Yes 30 different species... I wasn't specific about that, sorry.

To make that really work, there need to be changes I thought and since the achievment wants you to put the animals in one enclosure (WILDLIFE PARK, for what people had been criticized here before!) I wanted people to know Frontier did include this option and even wants us to do it. I wanted to stop that people get criticized further with that wildlife wish (they've been told here that zoos woundn't do that, they were upbraid to have false expectations because it's a zoo game and zoos would have small habitats)... the game really wants to give us that freedom ... and this arguing at peoples wishes is one thing I'm uncomfortable with... so I wanted to help.

Don't stop wishing I think, the devs figure out what they want for the game, don't make people feel wrong for wishing - please.

And I know that's still not changing the "groupsize-fight-thing" we experience right now - but it would be more imporant to change, since a very big habitat has to work somehow and this can't be done with the current "social" behavior, weird alpha status and the fighting to dead issue as soon as a baby grows up.

Had this again tonight... my grizzly girl grew up and went straight to fight her dad and mum! I put her into mart... her parents are already 28 and I figured to put her back with a male when her parents died one day ... it's sad I had to get rid of her like that, bears don't have tons of offspring in the game and I loved it when they were 3 in one habitat. I had it with wolves too in beta... so I really understand the issue here and would like to see changes on that too.

 

[jDegiorgio]

They should make it more realistic where you need to build 2 enclosures next to each other with an Animal Gate inbetween for breeding purposes only. E.g. male African Elephant needs to be seperated to the females unless its breeding season.

 

[Crea_TivELA]

They should make it more realistic where you need to build 2 enclosures next to each other with an Animal Gate inbetween for breeding purposes only. E.g. male African Elephant needs to be seperated to the females unless its breeding season.

I think gates for that purpose would really be nice, you could even use it for a winter habitat many zoo's in real use, or to seperate a mom with her babys what zoos would do to. I like the idea very much, because it would give us a wide new way to play with the habitats.

For the winter thing the weather would have to be more stable to months so you could do that and the time would have to be slower too .
But maybe we get this, because Frontier is working on that second part.

I'm pro + to add these kind of gates! Would be great! even when we can now create more habitats to do stuff like that, it would be more realistic if we wouldn't have to move animals to different habitats and just could open and close gates.