Animals with too small Group-Size

[EFZ]

I will try to cut it short, since the tone here is quite toxic. Like Frontier MUST do this or that…

I don’t think the game has to come with a wildlife-simulator, when it clearly states that it’s a zoo-game.
Animals in Zoos don’t have a lot of space. That’s a fact. You don’t have multiple prides of lions in the same enclosure. Or hyenas, lions and zebras. At least not for long.

And if two animals fight, they can’t get away from each other like they would in the wild. Therefore, fights are much more dangerous – and can end up deadly if no one intercepts.

“But one zoo has six cheetahs living happily together… and in the wild there was a group of seven!”
That’s great, media love to focus on the extraordinary. But normal is something else. Like, people here are whining for prides with five or more male lions, when there are only two or three documented cases in the wild…

I would love some changes, especially with the wolves, but I don’t think group sizes are so far off that it’s a gamebreaker.

I agree that limits shouldn't be taken out completely, but you're taking one small part of what's being discussed and trying to spin it as if it is the whole argument.I don't think people are arguing that we should have 100 lions or 8 cheetahs, but the point is that animal group ratios for most species are just plain wrong and with no basis in reality, especially more so in zoos. I don't want to have 5 male lions in a pride. But 2 male lions should be ok with each other. Wolves are social and shouldn't be killing family because there's 3 of them and not 2. Bull bisons shouldn't be constantly fighting because there's more than 1 of them.

And as for must, yes they must. Animal behaviour is an important part of the game and they have got it monumentally wrong for most animals. They must fix it, and that's the end of it. I'm glad you're enjoying the game. I am too, but the game has some problems right now that a lot of us want them to fix. That's all this is.

 

[Silhouette]

People are saying that they kept group sizes realistic to zoos and yes that may be true...

But let's be honest: with the inclusion of jeep, boat, etc rides and also the ability to group in lots of species together in the same habitat (African animals I'm looking at you), it's not really a stretch to say they thought of the possibility that some people may want to create zoos that function more like wildlife parks.

It is a zoo game yes but it's also not really fair to say too bad to anyone that wants to try something non-zoo like. The idea of having creativity and the ability to do what you want is already there in the game, and I don't think it's really a stretch to ask for group sizes that fluctuate based on space? Plus there are zoos, like the Columbus Zoo,that also own a wildlife park, so again, doesn't really break the boundaries of the game, so to speak.

Also can we please stop claiming any discussion about what we would like changed is toxic? Giving feedback and what we think would work better is not inherently toxic. Frontier has already said multiple times our feedback is appreciated. And just because they're the developers doesn't mean they know everything that's best for their game. That's why outside feedback is always so important in game development. I've made my own games better through feedback given to me by players.

 

[Dezessete]

The problem that the animal population is a fixed number instead of scaling with the habitat size was already criticised in JWE. I don't really understand why Frontier keeps this mechanic. It maybe makes sense for solitary animals but for animals that live in herds, the size of the habitat should determine the size of the herd.

 

[xTosca]

People are saying that they kept group sizes realistic to zoos and yes that may be true...

But let's be honest: with the inclusion of jeep, boat, etc rides and also the ability to group in lots of species together in the same habitat (African animals I'm looking at you), it's not really a stretch to say they thought of the possibility that some people may want to create zoos that function more like wildlife parks.

It is a zoo game yes but it's also not really fair to say too bad to anyone that wants to try something non-zoo like. The idea of having creativity and the ability to do what you want is already there in the game, and I don't think it's really a stretch to ask for group sizes that fluctuate based on space? Plus there are zoos, like the Columbus Zoo,that also own a wildlife park, so again, doesn't really break the boundaries of the game, so to speak.

Also can we please stop claiming any discussion about what we would like changed is toxic? Giving feedback and what we think would work better is not inherently toxic. Frontier has already said multiple times our feedback is appreciated. And just because they're the developers doesn't mean they know everything that's best for their game. That's why outside feedback is always so important in game development. I've made my own games better through feedback given to me by players.

See, the thing is, it's not even realistic for a zoo setting. Even in real life zoos, animal groups are based on space in the enclosure- they don't just immediately start fighting because their numbers reached some arbitrary specific value. It simply doesn't work like that. Using Flamingos as an example- even in zoos you will see 10+ in a single habitat. In game, you can only have 4(or so I've heard). Same thing with herd animals- A LOT of zoos actually have huge "safari" exhibits with large mixed groups of ungulate herds, often containing multiple males with no issue. Hell, zoos have even been known to house tigers together. There are even big cat sanctuaries, still captivity, that house lions and tigers together with no problem as well(generally neutered to prevent the breeding of ligers/tigons, but honestly, the fact tigers in this game kill lions like prey without even a proper FIGHT immediately is ridiculous lmao, how do you think ligers and tigons ever came to exist? Tigers and lions can live together just fine.)

Hell, zoos are even known to keep groups of cheetahs, and other animals that are typically solitary. So to say that, despite the fact zoos in real life can even keep groups of animals that are solitary in the wild together, it is somehow realistic that pack and herd animals are ridiculously limited to tiny, unrealistically small group sizes to the point you can't even have so much as 3 wolves in a habitat... it's ridiculous honestly.

Plus there's the fact that, as you said, just because this is a """zoo game""" doesn't mean we should be this limited, as if the game is ACTIVELY trying to PREVENT you from having large groups of animals that naturally live in large groups even in an enclosure that would realistically be big enough. The idea of a group limit is absolutely ridiculous and completely unrealistic for a zoo setting, because animals in zoos do not work in group limits, it is always based on habitat space. So ""it's a zoo game"" isn't even an excuse.

Hell, even Zoo Tycoon 2, a game that's 10+ years old at this point and had generally ty animal AI got this down right- animals won't start fighting until there's not enough space, except in some cases where males of predator species will fight eachother if introduced to strangers.(i.e. not family). And even then- get a big enough enclosure and the two males will start to drift away from eachother and the likelihood of fights is reduced significantly.

 

[xTosca]

It’s true that this is a zoo simulator and the space it’s not usually that big. I’m actually fine with the game not calculating the space and having a fixed numbers for every species. I understand it’s easier and I don’t mind it.

But the thing is that the fixed numbers are WRONG. Like I know most zoos don’t have wolves packs of 35, but 5-10 looks pretty reasonable? Definitely not 2. And I don’t need to have 200 American bisons like in the wild, but the group should DEFINITELY be fine with 10-15 mixed individuals of the same species. There is solitaire animals that a should stick with a max group of two, and I don’t mind reduced numbers for the rest, but there’s so many species that needs the number adjusted.

Then there’s flamingos, that accepts hundreds, and I’m fine with it too, but do any zoo actually have 500 flamingos? (Legitimate questions, in my country they are keep in groups of about 20 adults for space reasons).

The thing is, as I said in my above comment, it doesn't even matter that this is a ""zoo simulator"" because it's still completely unrealistic. Group sizes in zoos are based on habitat size, not some ridiculous arbitrary number where the animals start fighting. Why should I be limited to 15 max bison before they fight if I'm playing my zoo as a wildlife park with a massive enclosure that spans the entire map? Why can't I have 30 if there's enough space for them? Like honestly lol. This game was advertised on how much ""freedom"" it gives you- but honestly the way it stands now with the group sizes, it feels like you have no freedom at all except for in building... because the GAME decides how your habitats should be sized and how many animals should go in them, no matter if you made a big-ass habitat the size of the whole map, you can still only have 2 damn wolves, it doesn't matter. So there's no reason to ever make a habitat bigger than the game tells you it should be for the max group size, because... no matter how big you make the enclosure, for some reason you still can't have more animals.

Also even solitary animals should not be limited to 2 per group. Animals that are usually solitary can do just fine in groups given the habitat size is big enough, some zoos are even known to house multiple tigers, cheetahs, etc together in the same habitat. Hell, a LOT of animals that are typically solitary are kept in groups in zoos without an issue.

 

[Silhouette]

xTosca calm down a bit there buddy, you don't have to write paragraphs trying to explain why the group sizes are unrealistic... To people that already agree and want it changed xD

But yeah. Even Prehistoric Kingdom has already mentioned in their dev logs that they plan to have group sizes change based on the size of the exhibit. They weren't entirely clear how it will work, but from one of the things they said it sounded like they want to make it so that if you have more than the max number of dinosaurs in a social group, but there's enough space for all of them, the dinosaurs will intuitively break into multiple social groups. Which, if they do actually get that to work, would be amazing.

 

[xTosca]

xTosca calm down a bit there buddy, you don't have to write paragraphs trying to explain why the group sizes are unrealistic... To people that already agree and want it changed xD

But yeah. Even Prehistoric Kingdom has already mentioned in their dev logs that they plan to have group sizes change based on the size of the exhibit. They weren't entirely clear how it will work, but from one of the things they said it sounded like they want to make it so that if you have more than the max number of dinosaurs in a social group, but there's enough space for all of them, the dinosaurs will intuitively break into multiple social groups. Which, if they do actually get that to work, would be amazing.

It's a discussion, nothing wrong with elaborating on points in a discussion that others who might happen to disagree might read as well.

 

[EFZ]

If they can find a way within the systems they have in place to have group size dynamically change with exhibit size that would be perfect. There still need to be some limits in my opinion. A pride of lions or a troop of gorillas still can’t have more males than females in it, and there should be some limits to male numbers.

I don’t know if they can or want to do that or not though, so short of that I would be ok with the system we have if they tweak the group numbers and make them more realistic.

 

[MONOKERUS]

I'd love to be able to have bigger packs of animals as long as they have enough space, and I feel I right now spend most of my time keeping an eye on the animals growing from juvenile to adult only to immediately get rid of it while still having the parents fighting each other due to this system. I really do love zebras and it would be great to be able to keep a bigger herd than only 7 adult animals before they start fighting each other as long as they got enough space.

 

[Charmmy Colour]

The thing is, as I said in my above comment, it doesn't even matter that this is a ""zoo simulator"" because it's still completely unrealistic. Group sizes in zoos are based on habitat size, not some ridiculous arbitrary number where the animals start fighting. Why should I be limited to 15 max bison before they fight if I'm playing my zoo as a wildlife park with a massive enclosure that spans the entire map? Why can't I have 30 if there's enough space for them? Like honestly lol. This game was advertised on how much ""freedom"" it gives you- but honestly the way it stands now with the group sizes, it feels like you have no freedom at all except for in building... because the GAME decides how your habitats should be sized and how many animals should go in them, no matter if you made a big- habitat the size of the whole map, you can still only have 2 damn wolves, it doesn't matter. So there's no reason to ever make a habitat bigger than the game tells you it should be for the max group size, because... no matter how big you make the enclosure, for some reason you still can't have more animals.

Also even solitary animals should not be limited to 2 per group. Animals that are usually solitary can do just fine in groups given the habitat size is big enough, some zoos are even known to house multiple tigers, cheetahs, etc together in the same habitat. Hell, a LOT of animals that are typically solitary are kept in groups in zoos without an issue.

Oh, obviously that would be perfect! The AI calculating groups and max number depending on space sounds like a dream. I completely agree with you on that.

But I also keep in mind that it’s more complex and hard to program than simply changing the max numbers of the system. So I understand if it takes a while, even if it never comes. It’s tricky to make AI, things that “easy” as animals recognizing shelter and seeking it during rain, it’s actually a incredible complex behavior that even AAA games with huge budgets today get wrong all the time.

But programming wise, changing the max number of animals should be much more easier and feasible in the short term. That’s why I’m asking for it instead, because it have the option to come quicker and more stable, and the unrealistic numbers of animals is very annoying already to me.

If they, in the future, make it even better and add a system like you said? Awesome! But I’m just aiming for the basic fix for now.

 

[HoneyHippo]

This really bothers me too. I'd love to see more wiggleroom with group populations.

Some of them need quite large habitats too, (or you just have an awesome habitat idea that requires more space) but then you can only keep two animals. It makes the habitat seem empty and less alive than it could be.

There's no pack feeling to any of the animals, they don't herd and they start fighting their children as soon as they grow up. By now, almost all male animals born into the zoo I throw right out as soon as they mature.
I wish the devs would re-read their homework on flock/pack hierachy and behavior.

 

[xTosca]

Oh, obviously that would be perfect! The AI calculating groups and max number depending on space sounds like a dream. I completely agree with you on that.

But I also keep in mind that it’s more complex and hard to program than simply changing the max numbers of the system. So I understand if it takes a while, even if it never comes. It’s tricky to make AI, things that “easy” as animals recognizing shelter and seeking it during rain, it’s actually a incredible complex behavior that even AAA games with huge budgets today get wrong all the time.

But programming wise, changing the max number of animals should be much more easier and feasible in the short term. That’s why I’m asking for it instead, because it have the option to come quicker and more stable, and the unrealistic numbers of animals is very annoying already to me.

If they, in the future, make it even better and add a system like you said? Awesome! But I’m just aiming for the basic fix for now.

Changing the max number would be decent for holding us over until they can actually take the time to rework the system, but honestly, making animals have the capability of co-existing together until there is not enough space for them anymore is not actually as difficult as you'd think to do... Zoo Tycoon 2, a game that's like 20 years old at this point, had this. You could have 300 zebras in one area if you wanted, so long as there was enough space- the moment there was too little space for all of them, fights would break out.

It's honestly as simple as removing max group size as a feature, and instead base fighting behavior on space. Not enough space = animals start to fight eachother. Plenty of space = animals are just fine co-existing, besides maybe the occasional fight over alpha status. All they'd have to do is remap the "overcrowding" fighting behavior to refer to habitat space rather than group size. Once animals start to have space issues, then that would trigger fights in the same way having too large a group does now.

 

[Charmmy Colour]

Changing the max number would be decent for holding us over until they can actually take the time to rework the system, but honestly, making animals have the capability of co-existing together until there is not enough space for them anymore is not actually as difficult as you'd think to do... Zoo Tycoon 2, a game that's like 20 years old at this point, had this. You could have 300 zebras in one area if you wanted, so long as there was enough space- the moment there was too little space for all of them, fights would break out.

It's honestly as simple as removing max group size as a feature, and instead base fighting behavior on space. Not enough space = animals start to fight eachother. Plenty of space = animals are just fine co-existing, besides maybe the occasional fight over alpha status. All they'd have to do is remap the "overcrowding" fighting behavior to refer to habitat space rather than group size. Once animals start to have space issues, then that would trigger fights in the same way having too large a group does now.

But we also have to keep in mind that Zoo Tycoon 2 system was a lot more simple too. While the animals were capable of calculating the max number from the space, they couldn’t calculate sex ratios nor groups. If you had the space for it, you could have a pride of 9 male lions and 1 female and they didn’t care. That’s something that is new to Planet Zoo. ZT2 also didn’t have the capacity to look at the space and decide “ok, here there’s space for two herds, let’s keep the animals in two groups”. It always counted as a single one.

Not that PZ have that either, but if the implement the size mechanic, it should. Overall, it will be more complex than it was in ZT2.

 

[HoneyHippo]

To base group restrictions on space would make much more sense indeed, with the exceptions of a few species. The pack and herd animals just doesn't feel logical at all right now.
It gives the player the option to make big, creative habitats, and not just have two small animals in there (many of the models seem too small compared to guests to begin with). I made a big wolf mountain with a tunnel through, with looking points from inside the tunnel. It required a big spaced habitat, only to realize, i can't have a pack of wolves, only 2 adults. Now it seems empty, and most of the time only one viewing point in the tunnel actually offer a view of one or two wolves, if even that.

 

[Yukari1885]

With all this arguing, why don't we address the elephant in the room?

Currently in Planet Zoo you can already built habitats with any amount of animals in it and no fights!!!
You just have to do it in sandbox for now.
Until they bring a "safari park/wildlife park" update

 

[Mkau]

With all this arguing, why don't we address the elephant in the room?

Currently in Planet Zoo you can already built habitats with any amount of animals in it and no fights!!!
You just have to do it in sandbox for now.
Until they bring a "safari park/wildlife park" update

Wow,what an answer.Too bad this thread is not about wildlife parks and you missed the whole actual point of it.

 

[xTosca]

With all this arguing, why don't we address the elephant in the room?

Currently in Planet Zoo you can already built habitats with any amount of animals in it and no fights!!!
You just have to do it in sandbox for now.
Until they bring a "safari park/wildlife park" update

The problem is, you shouldn't HAVE to play Sandbox to somewhat simulate realistic pack/herding behavior. And wolves are still ridiculously finnicky even in Sandbox with fighting turned off, because you literally cannot BREED them. Because they for some reason have an alpha system despite only being able to live in pairs, which makes 0 sense to begin with, they are unable to breed if you have fighting disabled, because for some reason, even if they're the only ones in the enclosure, wolves will not get the alpha tag unless fighting is enabled.

So... Sandbox is not a viable solution, at least not in the longterm.

 

[EFZ]

I created an issue about this in the tracker, if everyone wants to join.
https://issues.frontierstore.net/issue-detail/9591

 

[eulemur]

Ring-tailed lemurs absolutely have more than 1 male in their social groups (in fact it is the females who are dominant, groups are commonly based around a single matriline but all adult females are allowed to breed). The red-ruffs are correct and fine, so idk why the ring tails specifically can only have 1 male in a breeding group. Most social lemur species have a 1:1 ratio of males and females in their social groups.

 

[Yukari1885]

The problem is, you shouldn't HAVE to play Sandbox to somewhat simulate realistic pack/herding behavior. And wolves are still ridiculously finnicky even in Sandbox with fighting turned off, because you literally cannot BREED them. Because they for some reason have an alpha system despite only being able to live in pairs, which makes 0 sense to begin with, they are unable to breed if you have fighting disabled, because for some reason, even if they're the only ones in the enclosure, wolves will not get the alpha tag unless fighting is enabled.

So... Sandbox is not a viable solution, at least not in the long-term.

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.