Genes are lying??

[Arrakai]

Are these something wrong with how the genes work, or am I missing something here??

These are one of my Bongo breeding pairs;

As you can see, their babys should be 100% in both size and longevity.

But this is their newly born baby;

How can the longevity of the baby only be 83% when it says that it should be 100% when checking the parents????

 

[Kolikokoli]

I though it is only what you will probably get not what you will acutally get

 

[SimoneV]

i guess cause it shows the best possible outcome, not the one you are guaranteed to get

 

[Locce]

i guess cause it shows the best possible outcome, not the one you are guaranteed to get

You'd think that's what the range of the bars would indicate. If a bar goes from ca. 80% to 100% I am not surprised if I get a 92% result, for example. But if the bar is actually just one line at the 100% mark I would understand that as the guaranteed outcome.
As it is it seems the genes are indeed lying to a certain degree, either due to a bug or because the bars don't factor in all the potential modifiers that could influence the genetic makeup of the offspring, whatever those may be. (Advanced age, for example, seems to lead to a higher chance of weaker offspring, and I am not sure if that is properly indicated.)

 

[shirandhak]

Is it sandbox?

 

[Arrakai]

Is it sandbox?

No, it's franchise.

i guess cause it shows the best possible outcome, not the one you are guaranteed to get

Well thats the case when the bars shows a longer range, like in this case for fertility and immunity. But when there is only one line, it should be what it says it should be, in this case 100%.

You'd think that's what the range of the bars would indicate. If a bar goes from ca. 80% to 100% I am not surprised if I get a 92% result, for example. But if the bar is actually just one line at the 100% mark I would understand that as the guaranteed outcome.
As it is it seems the genes are indeed lying to a certain degree, either due to a bug or because the bars don't factor in all the potential modifiers that could influence the genetic makeup of the offspring, whatever those may be. (Advanced age, for example, seems to lead to a higher chance of weaker offspring, and I am not sure if that is properly indicated.)

yes exactly, that's how I see it too, why would it say that otherwise???
Is there a way to see what is influencing the offsprings genes other than the parents genes? I'm trying to breed perfect babys, and things like this makes it extra frustrating (it still takes me about a week of playing to get my first 100% babys).
And in this case the age of the parents can't affect it, as they are not old, I even think this one was their first baby.

 

[ChicagoZohan]

Mutation? Same way a lineage with no white color Gene's can develop them spontaneously.

 

[Locce]

Mutation? Same way a lineage with no white color Gene's can develop them spontaneously.

Yes, this might be one such factor that doesn't go into the gene calculation (and I would speculate that parents' advanced age makes those more likely). I am afraid there is really no way to see those modifiers beforehand and breed perfect animals with a 100% certainty, but if we are talking about animals who produce a good amount of offspring during their lifetime there is still a pretty good chance you make some progress towards a stable "super breed".
If I look at my Bengal Tigers, for example, there are almost always some white (quality), bronze or silver kittens in a litter, but in each generation there are enough white (fur) tigers with 4x100% or 3x100% and one random value above 80% that I don't need to worry about them at all. Animals that produce only small amounts of offspring, on the other hand, are a whole different cup of tea...

 

[Arrakai]

Yes, this might be one such factor that doesn't go into the gene calculation (and I would speculate that parents' advanced age makes those more likely). I am afraid there is really no way to see those modifiers beforehand and breed perfect animals with a 100% certainty, but if we are talking about animals who produce a good amount of offspring during their lifetime there is still a pretty good chance you make some progress towards a stable "super breed".
If I look at my Bengal Tigers, for example, there are almost always some white (quality), bronze or silver kittens in a litter, but in each generation there are enough white (fur) tigers with 4x100% or 3x100% and one random value above 80% that I don't need to worry about them at all. Animals that produce only small amounts of offspring, on the other hand, are a whole different cup of tea...

Ye, I almost dread the time when I will start breeding African Buffalos again -.- I started with them when i didn't have alot of knowledge about breeding and gave up after almost a month of breeding without getting any 100% animals. Now i have better understanding of it and I have managed to breed over 20 perfect babys of both Aardvarks, African lions, Warthogs, Red pandas, Flamingos (I think I'm at like 60-70 perfect babys there ) and now Bongos.

 

[Locce]

Oh, yes, the Flamingos!
Those and the Indian Peafowl really breed themselves. And great cats seem to be quite breeder-friendly in general as I am just trying to breed some beautiful Jaguars and so far it's going nicely.

 

[Arrakai]

Ye, once you get a "few" good breeding pairs of Flamingos, you never have to worry about them anymore I get so many good ones now that I can sell 3x100% females for less than 20cc just to get rid of them

Just started my next project, the Japanese makaks. Think this one is gonna take a while to get started, since there only seems to be bad stat Frontier ones in the market :/

 

[Locce]

Don't remind me of the Macaques!
They were one of the first animal species I had a good amount of in my main zoo, but then that save got corrupted and when I transferred the colony to a new zoo there were zero females born (or traded of any quality) for years afters years after years until the population collapsed, just in time for the community challenge. That was fun.
I am just now back at a point where I have enough of them to give it a new try.

 

[Haunt]

This was actually discussed and figured out in another thread. And, no, the genes are not lying, but you will wish they did. Because the devs were over concerned about the inbreeding issue they needed a way to insure that inbreeding could cause good genes to turn bad.

The way Frontier made genealogy work in Planet Zoo was that unmatched pairs are good while matched pairs are bad. The baby gets half of a pair from mom and other half from dad, and is completely random which half it will get from each parent. So let us say that dad was ABCD and mom was ABCD or even BADC or any other combination of non-repeating letters. This if their rest of the genome looked similar would make both mom parents have 100% because they are unmatched / unrepeated. Baby however has a chance of either being AA or AB or BA or BB. If it is AB or BA then it registers as a good gene (assuming that all of the genes relevant to that are unmatched). If however one of the duplicated strands of AA or BB happens then that node in the genome is considered "null" or bad. The game then adds up the number or good or bad genes and gives a value between 0% and 100%.

The good news is that it is not bugged and the game is not lying to you. The bad news is that it means you can not just mate 100% with 100% and assume you will get good genes which is what you are trying to do. Instead you have to look at the complicated letters in the genome and ask yourself whether mother and father contains genes different enough that the resulting random gene pairs throughout their genome code are unlikely to match up.

This is both more realistic, and yet at same time way over-complicates things and in the process ruins the fun of any casual players since it means even unrelated animals are at risk of having terrible offspring or terrible parents having super mutts. Unless you are able to keep a close track of the entire genome of every animal this means that raising up your overall animal quality will be an endless task of stress and failures.

In Summary... an animal having 100% of stats means simply that single animal is a good animal. Its ability to pass on good genes as a breeder however depends entirely on its genome in comparison to the mate's genome rather than that large 100% number of each specific animal. If you need more specifics to understand I can either point you to the other thread or toss up some example mating pairs and show you the possible resulting babies and their values.

 

[Arrakai]

Exept what you are talking about only affects fertility and imunity, NOT longevity and size, as frontier have stated.
When it comes to fertility and imunity it is like you stated above, you want diverse genes, but when it comes to size and longevity, you want similar genes. That's why the newly implemented genealogy only shows you fertility and imunity, not the other two.
And also;
1. I always compare mates to make sure they have as high a possibility as possible to produce 100% babys (look at the pic I posted in my first post here). And if the comparing says that the babys will have 100% in both size and longevity, like in the pic I posted, the genes are indeed lying.
2. I try to avoid inbreeding when possible (even though inbreeding is actually in some ways faster and better when trying to get 100% babys)

 

[Haunt]

Uh, again Arrakai, you're wrong about what the opening picture says.

The picture says nothing about the first two stats you are fixated on because the info is hidden, all it shows is that the baby has a random chance of getting genes of a range of minimum to maximum fertility and immunity. It is NOT guaranteeing 100%. If it was guaranteeing that (it never could) the shaded area of the bar would be very thin only over the 100% area, there would not be a fat range. Meanwhile the Size and Longevity bars are simply not shown but ALSO include a hidden range.

You think that the Longevity and Size are controlled only by the the 100% shown in both parents but that is just not true. As stated before parents pass genes on and the total amount of genes matched depends on the percentage the baby gets. The only difference here between those two "unseen" categories and the other two is that you can not actually see what genes got passed on. You have no guarantees that either parent will pass on just the right genes to make the baby also end up as 100% like the parents.

I wish Frontier would bring back the visuals so I could make my point better, but whether the visuals are there or not the code works exactly the same now as it did before.

 

[Arrakai]

Uh, again Arrakai, you're wrong about what the opening picture says.

The picture says nothing about the first two stats you are fixated on because the info is hidden, all it shows is that the baby has a random chance of getting genes of a range of minimum to maximum fertility and immunity. It is NOT guaranteeing 100%. If it was guaranteeing that (it never could) the shaded area of the bar would be very thin only over the 100% area, there would not be a fat range. Meanwhile the Size and Longevity bars are simply not shown but ALSO include a hidden range.

Eh, did you look at the pic? "If it was guaranteeing that (it never could) the shaded area of the bar would be very thin only over the 100% area, there would not be a fat range" that is exactly what the pic shows for size and longevity.... And I'm not talking about fertility and imunity here, as those have indeed a bigger range in this case. I'm talking about the fact that the size and longevity is this thin line at 100%, no shade at all, and I still get babys that are less than that.

You think that the Longevity and Size are controlled only by the the 100% shown in both parents but that is just not true. As stated before parents pass genes on and the total amount of genes matched depends on the percentage the baby gets. The only difference here between those two "unseen" categories and the other two is that you can not actually see what genes got passed on. You have no guarantees that either parent will pass on just the right genes to make the baby also end up as 100% like the parents.

I wish Frontier would bring back the visuals so I could make my point better, but whether the visuals are there or not the code works exactly the same now as it did before.

If that is the case that there are hidden variables that can not be seen or tested for in any way, then I think they should add that, because right now the visuals ARE lying. It shows as a thin line at 100%, wich should mean that that's the range it can be = 100%

What is even the purpose of the range you see when comparing mates if it's not accurate? Why have "hidden" info at all and not show it in the possible range, that doesn't make any sense and is the whole point of this post. That the visual info in the genes are lying atm...

 

[felinora99]

I made a thread about inconsistency in genes. The way fertility and immunity works has changed, it was as Haunt said, then after the update 1.2 it changes and now it is back to it.

I think your genes lying might be linked to the issue I observed for fertility and immunity (I couldn't check for the others as we do not see the genes) : my offsprings have completely different genes than their parents. Before the 1.2.2 update, I observed (and a lot of people did too) that a baby inherited its 6 first letters from his mother (either the first or last 6 letters of the mother) and its last 6 from the father.

If there is an issue in genetics and babies no longer inherit their genes from their parents, or in a more random and "mutable" way, then maybe the game thought your baby would be a 100%, and then since he got a more or less random genetic, it lied and he ended up with fewer stats..

I don't know if this inheritence thing is wanted by Frontier, or if this is a bug that no one noticed. But it drives me crazy cause I can't plan my breeding, and I ended with bad states babies when they should have been good, and a 100% everywhere baby and I can't understand how he got so good genes in fertility and immunity

 

[shirandhak]

Like it's driving me crazy to have an albino male plus an albino female and get 100% normal coloured babies in sandbox.

Maybe the whole genetic-thing is only a big hoax?

 

[felinora99]

Like it's driving me crazy to have an albino male plus an albino female and get 100% normal coloured babies in sandbox.

Maybe the whole genetic-thing is only a big hoax?

No, after the update 1.2 and before the update 1.2.2 genetic was perfectly logical, I even made an excel to know for two given parents the different genes combination possible and it worked. But since it doesn't work anymore...

Honestly I would love to have a developer or community manager answering us, to know if they did it on purpose or if we should file a ticket to report it as a bug. I don't want to spend another 10 hours to get how it works for it to change without warning...