Establish consistency among the animals with space and social needs

[tigris115]

I find it quite odd how inconsistent the animals are in these 2 respects.

I'd say the most annoying ones are the hippo and polar bear. I know Frontier said that they explicitly gave the polar bear such an insane space requirement due to wanting to teach a message of conservation but IMO, it comes off as mean. It's also weird because other animals have quite large territories such as elephants and big cats, yet their space needs are fairly trifling compared to the hippo and polar bear, leaving gamers perplexed (Thank Christ for Steam Blueprints)

If you want my suggestion for this matter, I'd say consult this series of care manuals by the AZA

Animal Care Manuals | Association of Zoos & Aquariums

The Association of Zoos & Aquariums offers Animal Care Manuals (ACMs) created by leading biologists, veterinarians, nutritionists, reproduction physiologists, behaviorists and researchers to equip zoo and aquarium employees and volunteers with comprehensive care guides for various species. View...

www.aza.org

I'd say have animals categorized in groups to provide a sense of consistency in order to ease people into keeping new species

One more thing, social groups are weird

Zebras seem to have a very small social maximum. While one could argue that this is reasonable in captivity, that argument is shot down by the flamingo and penguin where the social maximum is 500.

 

[NZFanatic]

Zebras seem to have a very small social maximum. While one could argue that this is reasonable in captivity, that argument is shot down by the flamingo and penguin where the social maximum is 500.

In Sandbox the space needs aren't really a problem if you turn off welfare, but with the zebra it's because they based the space requirements on average harem numbers instead of total herd numbers. In the wild zebra herds comprise of several harems, which tend to be a single male and a small group of females. Fights among stallions occur when males try to steal females from each other for their own harems.

My solution to these social group issues has always been to establish a ratio of males to females instead of a strict delineation. So instead of saying "one male six females" it could say "one male to six females", in other words you could have two males and twelve females, or three males and eighteen females, which I think would work a lot better. That said zoos do tend to limit these numbers for management purposes (which isn't such a big deal with birds - especially flamingos and penguins which are typically monogamous).

 

[Firestar97]

I assume the Reason for the Hippo Enclosure Size is that they are so territorial. I don't thin their Size Requirements are that bad if you only keep 2 or 3.
But it always takes away my Motivation to keep Polar Bears when I think about their Requirements. How are you even supposed to create a good looking Building in that Size? I don't want to create giant secret Underground Caves or stack multiple Areas for them above each other all the Time

 

[Aramar]

In Sandbox the space needs aren't really a problem if you turn off welfare

I'm mostly a sandbox player, but I never turn off welfare. The only thing I deactivate is the death of animals, mainly because of the exhibits. When the habitat animals get too old and can't have more babies I sometimes replace them. I'm fine with most of the animals requirements, but the hippos and mostly the polar bears are insane. I don't want to be forced to turn off welfare to be able to use my favourite animal in the world. I hope that when deep diving is added to the polar bear (and the Asia tag) they also adjust again their needs. As I showed on the thread below, the huge requirements get even worse because of the traversable area.

Thread 'Polar bear enclosures' https://forums.frontier.co.uk/threads/polar-bear-enclosures.565850/

If Frontier doesn't listen to us on this matter, I've seen there's a mod to solve the issue. If I have to use mods to fix something because of Frontier stubborness, I will think it twice before buying something else from them in the future.

 

[NZFanatic]

I'm mostly a sandbox player, but I never turn off welfare.

I mean, that's your prerogative I guess, but the whole reason for the option to turn off welfare in Sandbox was because of these insane space requirements. Frontier didn't want to roll back their choices but they also didn't want people turned off from using these animals. You can't build realistically with welfare turned on, either, which for some people isn't an issue, but it goes beyond space requirements (foliage preferences and requirements are also nuts).

I'm not saying the space requirements don't need another look, but my main point was that a solution already exists if you're willing to use it.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

but the whole reason for the option to turn off welfare in Sandbox was because of these insane space requirements.

This is interesting to me, and a part of the development history I didn't know. (I started playing PZ a bit late because I had to save up enough money to buy a computer that could run it). By the time I joined, it seemed like the optional welfare was being treated as a standard part of sandbox, and a sort of expectation that (some) players had about what it meant to have a sandbox mode as an option. And it seemed like by the time I joined, (some) players were also turning off the welfare requirements to do lots of different things, not just beat Frontier's choices around animal requirements.

I'm interested in learning more about this development history, since I'm not familiar with a lot of other video games. Is it common for games with dedicated sandbox modes to have the option to turn off so many gameplay features? Or is that unique to PZ because of the animal welfare choices?

Does anyone remember when the welfare-off option was added and the stated reasons for it? I've tried to look in the update notes and wasn't able to find an answer (although maybe it was way back before release like during beta or early access or something).

Thanks!

 

[iloveyourzoos]

My solution to these social group issues has always been to establish a ratio of males to females instead of a strict delineation. So instead of saying "one male six females" it could say "one male to six females", in other words you could have two males and twelve females, or three males and eighteen females, which I think would work a lot better.

I absolutely LOVE this ratio idea. I've basically been building enclosures with "hidden" barriers (rocks, trees, elephant grass, glass and chainlink in hidden areas) to try to get the same effect when I want to simulate a larger herd. And it would still provide a nice management challenge, since you'd still need to watch for inbreeding, now with 2, 3 or more males instead of just 1!

 

[Firestar97]

Is it common for games with dedicated sandbox modes to have the option to turn off so many gameplay features? Or is that unique to PZ because of the animal welfare choices?

At least the Zoo Games I've played before only had unlimited Money (and I think sometimes also unlocked Research)

I absolutely LOVE this ratio idea. I've basically been building enclosures with "hidden" barriers (rocks, trees, elephant grass, glass and chainlink in hidden areas) to try to get the same effect when I want to simulate a larger herd. And it would still provide a nice management challenge, since you'd still need to watch for inbreeding, now with 2, 3 or more males instead of just 1!

Would be really great. Maybe also something similar with available Space. I think some Zoos keep 3 Polar Bears in one Enclosure (of course impossible with those Requirements ), 3 Tigers and more than 2 Tapirs in their Enclosures

 

[NZFanatic]

Does anyone remember when the welfare-off option was added and the stated reasons for it? I've tried to look in the update notes and wasn't able to find an answer (although maybe it was way back before release like during beta or early access or something).

Thanks!

It wasn't a stated reason, but it's fairly obvious when you look at it - they added they option after the outrage with the polar bear, and because that outrage spawned other discussions on the topic, around the hippo, the monitor lizard and Komodo dragon, and other animals, too. It also spawned discussion around building realistic zoos, which was a huge part of it; very few zoos in the world can get close to emulating the actual natural environment of the species they have on display.

The space was one factor (many zoos will keep large monitor lizards, such as the Nile monitor, in reptile houses; they certainly don't need a massive outdoor space, not to mention the constraints on temperature and humidity control which affect reptiles, even large ones, far more than they do mammals), but there's also the foliage point; the example I usually point to is that a lion isn't going to differentiate between an umbrella acacia tree and a Scots pine; a tree is a tree. The animal doesn't care, unless it needs the plant for a special diet (such as bamboo for pandas, which is one reason they're so difficult to keep in captivity, or eucalyptus for koalas). What the animal is looking for is shade, something to climb, something to scratch, all of which can be achieved through artificial objects or local flora. This is also exactly why artificial climbing equipment is so successful with primates and the like (which the game blessedly gets right - if only we had more options for ropes!).

Turning off welfare means you can ignore these constraints. They still work fine for Franchise or Challenge, where the whole point is to, you know, be challenged (which ultimately is the whole reason these limitations exist), but in Sandbox turning off welfare gives you the option to actually look at real zoos and emulate what they do. The only enduring problem now is the diving requirements, which can be ignored but unfortunately are linked to whether the animals dive at all.

To summarise, it seems pretty clear due to the timing of the option, both with regards to the polar bear and to the discussions at the time, that Frontier added this ability to appease those of us in the community who wanted full creative freedom.

 

[iloveyourzoos]

Thanks @NZFanatic . This was really helpful!

I admit that my confusion may come from watching youtube players who often make it sound as if the ability to turn off everything is a standard part of what having a sandbox mode is supposed to mean across all sorts of games and platforms. So I kind of assumed that frontier adding the ability to turn things off was more about coming closer to an industry standard or player expectations of building genres in general, rather than realizing that it was responding (or refusing to respond) to something they'd gotten wrong with the game. I'll definitely listen more closely the next time I hear it brought up, since maybe these folks are just expressing their personal preferences or desires of what they'd like a sandbox to mean.

 

[tigris115]

Looking at the habitat needs again, I feel that one thing Frontier could do to improve things is just put the habitat needs of every animal together and compare. For example, a Komodo dragon needs 600sqm while a Plains zebra needs 510sqm. This seems really silly

 

[tigris115]

Bumping as this is something that hasn't been addressed.