Could we change the solitary animal social from (1-1) to (0-1)?

[Pixelated Sparkster]

Solitary dinosaurs like tyrannosaurus rex, allosaurus, the indominous rex, and indoraptor used to have a social count of 0-1 prior to the secrets of Dr.Wu DLC and update. I wish to know if we could have them back in 0-1 as opposed to their current 1-1.

Mainly because a social count of 0-1 would allow for a wider range of social options for these dinosaurs. Currently we could only have 1,2,or 4 dinosaurs of these species. If they were 0-1, then we could also have the option to have 3 of the same species.

Social (1-1)
(+1 gene = (2-2)), (+3 gene = (4-4)), (-1 gene = (0-0))

Social (0-1)
(+1 gene = (1-2)), (+3 gene = (3-4)), (-1 gene = (0-0))

 

[JoaquinZaba]

Yes! That would be great...I made a sandbox park with all the dinosaur skins (6 for each dinosaur) and I’m planning to do something similar in the other islands...and I’d rather have 2 enclosures with 3 dinosaurs each instead of 3 enclosures with 2 dinosaurs each or a pair of 4 dinosaurs/2 dinosaurs enclosures

(...)used to have a social count of 0-1 prior to the secrets of Dr.Wu DLC and update.

Frontier...WHY did they change it?

 

[Pixelated Sparkster]

Yes! That would be great...I made a sandbox park with all the dinosaur skins (6 for each dinosaur) and I’m planning to do something similar in the other islands...and I’d rather have 2 enclosures with 3 dinosaurs each instead of 3 enclosures with 2 dinosaurs each or a pair of 4 dinosaurs/2 dinosaurs enclosures



Frontier...WHY did they change it?

Lol, I think they changed it as it made sense. How is a dinosaur comfortable with herself and zero? I was ok with this at first, However, that logic quickly loses meaning once genetic modification comes into play.

It is like if I take a spinosaurus (1-2) and gave it a solitary gene version 1, it then becomes (0-1).
It is fun as there is an element of "you MUST have only 2 tyrannosaurs or they will not be happy", but it loses a bit of meaning as whoever puts in the additional gene slot already has the intent, and money, to go forward with 2 tyrannosaurs. Changing it back to (0-1) would allow for more options in the form of 3 of the solitary animals. And I personally always imagined allosaurus to be in a trio if they ever moved in packs, and would like to have such a pack in my parks.

 

[Stutter11]

This makes sense. Sometimes, I feel as if having 2 of the same species of medium or large carnivore isn't enough, yet 4 is too much. You know?

 

[Ahoyt01]

Changing it back to (0-1) would allow for more options in the form of 3 of the solitary animals. And I personally always imagined allosaurus to be in a trio if they ever moved in packs, and would like to have such a pack in my parks.

So true! It's always bugged me that they made the Allosaurus solitary. Didn't they watch WWD?!

 

[Gondrasia]

So true! It's always bugged me that they made the Allosaurus solitary. Didn't they watch WWD?!

Because there’s little to no evidence supporting the idea that Allosaurus was a pack hunter, mobbing behaviour perhaps but not planned and coherent hunting as a pack.

 

[Ahoyt01]

Because there’s little to no evidence supporting the idea that Allosaurus was a pack hunter, mobbing behaviour perhaps but not planned and coherent hunting as a pack.

There's really no evidence either way. Also, this is a video game and the majority of the people playing it realize that the developers are not striving to be aligned with the latest scientific evidence of the day. So, you don't need to reply with condescending posts pointing this out.

Also, my comment about WWD was supposed to be "tongue in cheek", hence the laughing emoji.

 

[Gondrasia]

There's really no evidence either way. Also, this is a video game and the majority of the people playing it realize that the developers are not striving to be aligned with the latest scientific evidence of the day. So, you don't need to reply with condescending posts pointing this out.

Also, my comment about WWD was supposed to be "tongue in cheek", hence the laughing emoji.

As you said, there’s no definitive evidence either way that Allosaurus was a solitary predator or a social pack hunter and I apologise for my previous post, I did not intend to come across as condescending towards you.

 

[JoaquinZaba]

This derrailed from the original.

Does somebody know why they change it from 0-1 to 1-1?

 

[Pixelated Sparkster]

This derrailed from the original.

Does somebody know why they change it from 0-1 to 1-1?

Exactly why? not really, my assumption is that frontier wanted to clean up the numbers as there were dinosaurs that had a social limit starting with either 1 or zero. Now all dinosaurs have a social limit that starts with 1, making it neat and consistent with all dinosaur social limits. This change however came during the release of the secrets of Dr.Wu DLC, so maybe it was an oversight.

I don't mind if the solo dinosaurs are the only ones to have 0 as their social minimum. It will match the other dinosaurs who end up being solo after genetic modifications.

 

[Jurassic Tyrant King]

you know you bring up a very good point because I never really thought about the status of the social behavior of the dinosaurs maybe you could be improved on in the future as well?

 

[JoaquinZaba]

Does somebody know why they change it from 0-1 to 1-1?

Is there any way to contact Frontier to ask this?