Hot takes for planet zoo

Iben

Iben
Mjmannella said:
And the answer I've gathered is that most of the community would rather have yet another cat (two even!) over something highly versatile like red-legged seriemas.
So if we end up getting no primates or birds in the next DLC pack, this should be an immediate wake-up call to rally and build a singular driving voice also multiple platforms to make this interest loud.
Click to expand...
If the answer is that the majority of the community prefers to have more cats (I'm going to ignore the "yet another" and the "over something highly versatile" part as it's completely subjective) and Frontier then delivers on that; then exactly what you're saying you want for birds and primates is already happening. Just not for the animals you'd like to see in the game.

As much as I agree with the fact that the game gets better by getting more primates and birds; I'm going to be honest and say that your goal to me seems less about creating a common and singular voice throughout the community to voice what the community wants, but rather to voice what you want. I'm not saying that's a bad thing btw, but it's only fair just be open about it.

Swjosdotschka said:
First of all they are not "essential" as some claim. There are many zoos without aquariums and even in zoos that have one, they are never the main attraction.
Click to expand...
Not every zoo has aquariums, but every aquarium is de facto a zoo. The distinction is the same as a city zoo vs a safari park, it simply specifies which type of zoo.

I heavily disagree with the fact that they're "never the main attraction", because there are plenty of zoos out there were they are one of the main attractions (because frankly, zoos rarely have just one main attraction). Again, not every zoo, but there sure as heck are enough examples for it. Burgers, Antwerp, Blijdorp, Minesota, Point Defiance, John Ball,... The list goes on and on.

Swjosdotschka said:
Second: For an aquarium to feel lively you need a lot of animals. With how PZ handles path finding etc. for individuals in a habitat that is a calculation nightmare.
Click to expand...
Now this I agree with, but I don't think Frontier is ever going to add them as habitat animals. The exhibit system is a prime candidate for fish and only really needs a few small changes to function as such. They'd be much less taxing than habitat animals.
 

Swjosdotschka

Swjosdotschka
Iben said:
Now this I agree with, but I don't think Frontier is ever going to add them as habitat animals. The exhibit system is a prime candidate for fish and only really needs a few small changes to function as such. They'd be much less taxing than habitat animals.
Click to expand...
When I heard people talk about aquariums here, they very often mean big tanks with multi species and that's what I was refering to. Of course things could work in a single species exhibit type of thing.
 

Iben

Iben
Swjosdotschka said:
When I heard people talk about aquariums here, they very often mean big tanks with multi species and that's what I was refering to. Of course things could work in a single species exhibit type of thing.
Click to expand...
Yes, but we're long passed the single species exhibit. Having multiple species in one exhibit is already an option, and can be further extended upon. For the vast majority of mixed tanks (excluding the ones with rays, sharks and sea turtles) the current setup already works. For the other ones I excluded earlier you'd need to come up with some creative solutions; but I wouldn't say they're impossible.

The concept of limited looped animations (aka the exhibit concept) works perfectly for fish; all the rest is window dressing which you can change.
 

Marvinb

Marvinb
Tbh i think if frontier didnt caught the hint that people want more monkeys and birds than idk what.
Like more than half of the top 20 in the 25 meta is monkeys and birds and people have been very vocal about this for a good two years now i feel.

If frontier doesnt include more of them in upcoming content than they just dont want to include them for whatever reason, because there is no way that they arent aware of the demand by now
 

NZFanatic

NZFanatic
Iben said:
Having multiple species in one exhibit is already an option, and can be further extended upon.
Click to expand...
Is it, though?

The butterflies hardly count. They are all identically animated and follow identical flight paths. If you fill the WTE to the brim with one species instead of five, there's no change in where the butterflies are actually going. There's one loop (so to speak); it doesn't matter which combo of butterflies you actually put in. This might work for multiple species of African cichlids or Asian tetras or something, but it's more than a short leap to a coral reef tank with 5-10 species of very different fish. Like, a clownfish can't just be a recoloured/reshaped blue tang.
 

NachoB

NachoB
NZFanatic said:
Is it, though?

The butterflies hardly count. They are all identically animated and follow identical flight paths. If you fill the WTE to the brim with one species instead of five, there's no change in where the butterflies are actually going. There's one loop (so to speak); it doesn't matter which combo of butterflies you actually put in. This might work for multiple species of African cichlids or Asian tetras or something, but it's more than a short leap to a coral reef tank with 5-10 species of very different fish. Like, a clownfish can't just be a recoloured/reshaped blue tang.
Click to expand...
Idk if he was refering just to WTE but i believe modders were able to make exhibits hold.multiple species. I might have to check if those are of the same type.of animal like happens with butterflies tbh but i know is possible.
 

Iben

Iben
NZFanatic said:
Is it, though?
Click to expand...
On a technical level it is.

NZFanatic said:
Like, a clownfish can't just be a recoloured/reshaped blue tang.
Click to expand...
Whilst that is true; a lot of fish can be done using fairly generic animations, with the actual rigging and weightpainting (which is model based) creating the effect that these look different even though the base animation is still the same. That's probably also going to be the way they would tackle it, in the same vain that other animals in this game share animations. It isn't always going to look 100% realistic, but it's the sacrifice you'll have to make for the amount of fish you'd need to realistically create aquariums.

Besides that, as I mentioned, it can be extended. From a technical perspective you should easily be able to lock animations to specific species, so we're not talking about technical boundaries that are so huge to leap over that it's impossible or takes months of work.

I'm not saying that they're going to add them to this game, but I'm willing to bet money on the fact that a sequel will have fish that uses an adjusted version of the exhibit system. And rightfully so, it's the most efficient way to do it.

Marvinb said:
If frontier doesnt include more of them in upcoming content than they just dont want to include them for whatever reason, because there is no way that they arent aware of the demand by now
Click to expand...

Exactly this. It's a good rule to keep in mind that even though we can't think of a reason, that doesn't imply that there isn't one.
 

Mjmannella

Mjmannella
Iben said:
If the answer is that the majority of the community prefers to have more cats (I'm going to ignore the "yet another" and the "over something highly versatile" part as it's completely subjective) and Frontier then delivers on that; then exactly what you're saying you want for birds and primates is already happening.
Click to expand...
That would be fair, though that should also mean people shouldn't be uppity if they don't get birds and/or primates because they didn't take the time to promote them broadly to the community.
On the note of my word usage, those 100% aren't subjective but I digress.
Iben said:
I'm going to be honest and say that your goal to me seems less about creating a common and singular voice throughout the community to voice what the community wants, but rather to voice what you want.
Click to expand...
If I was truly speaking on my own behalf, I'd be pushing a lot more for ungulates because I think their diversity and utility is highly undersold and deserves more attention. I'm only trying to help the crowds that are way more into birds and primates so they can get what they want (even if it puts my own interests to a detriment, as ungulates aren't very popular in the community ATM). But thanks for making the assumption, I guess.
 

Iben

Iben
Mjmannella said:
That would be fair, though that should also mean people shouldn't be uppity if they don't get birds and/or primates because they didn't take the time to promote them broadly to the community.
Click to expand...
I think in all fairness that it has nothing to do with the fact that they're not vocal enough, I'd say they're pretty vocal. But clearly, it seems they're not a majority.

So I do agree with you, it's a shame that certain animals aren't in the game but you should also be able to let that go and not ruin your enjoyment of the game. And if it really does ruin it, then it's more than fine to move on in it's entirety. It's a thing society as a whole should probably do more, it's totally okay that you don't like something and move on.

Like, if the game doesn't include the animals you want DLC after DLC because it turns out the rest of the players don't end up wanting the same thing as you; what are you gaining from investing yourself in it so much that it makes you angry or disappointed all the time? Is it really still worth it then? Or is it healthier to just let go?

Mjmannella said:
On the note of my word usage, those 100% aren't subjective but I digress.
Click to expand...
Everyone, and yes that includes you and me as well, has a subjective baseline about what they want from the game. Based on that subjective baseline, you can make objective criteria for yourself. But at its core, it's still subjective.

My baseline is that a zoo game only really needs to accurately portray a real life zoo. So that means that animals selected for the game should be ones that are kept in captivity. Objective criteria, based on my subjective baseline. Yours, from what I've gathered from your posts over the years, seems to primarily focus/include that zoo game needs to educate a broader public about animals in general so whether an animal is found in captivity or not is less important than its educational value. Again, objective criteria, but a different subjective baseline.

Your baseline doesn't trump mine or vice versa, both have their own value and their value at the end of the day is equal. Neither one of them is more objective, which is why I stand by what I said. And as I said before, there would be a lot less pointless discussions and unnecessary back-and-forths if we could just accept that we all just want different things based on our own experiences.

Mjmannella said:
But thanks for making the assumption, I guess.
Click to expand...
What I'm going to say now is really genuine feedback and not said with bad intent; but if you don't want people to make that assumption then my advice would be to not focus as much on devaluing the wishes of other people. By for instance calling animals that seem to be in popular demand distractions or implying that they're of less value, it really doesn't come across as if you're doing this for the community and it really does make you sound as if you're mostly speaking on your own behalf.

Which, as I mentioned earlier, wouldn't have been a bad thing if you were.
 

Mjmannella

Mjmannella
Iben said:
I think in all fairness that it has nothing to do with the fact that they're not vocal enough, I'd say they're pretty vocal. But clearly, it seems they're not a majority.
Click to expand...
My point is that if they want what they want, they should encourage others to support their cause so it becomes the majority view. That's what I mean by having a communal voice that gets the big idea through. Change minds to see what you want by being loud and persuasive.
Iben said:
Everyone, and yes that includes you and me as well, has a subjective baseline about what they want from the game.
Click to expand...
This isn't related to representing animal families or utility in zoo construction. My point are thus:
  • We currently have 15 cats, and have gotten at least 1 cat as paid DLC every year post-launch (two of these cats repeat a species representation, but that's a separate issue). To say ocelots and serval are yet more cats is nothing short of a fact because ocelots and servals are objectively cats.
  • White-faced whistling ducks are useful for many types of enclosures a player might build, and it's hard to argue that this is false. Here's just a handful of ideas:
    • Amazon pavilions with other birds
    • Congo pavilions with other birds
    • Filler animals for larger Amazon species
    • Filler animals for larger Congo species
    • Petting zoos (yes, this is indeed a thing)
    • Duck ponds as set-dressing
Iben said:
if you don't want people to make that assumption then my advice would be to not focus as much on devaluing the wishes of other people.
Click to expand...
The thing is that (and this is itself a super hot take) but maybe we need to have a deep look at the state of our animal roster to really calibrate what our thoughts and discussions should prioritise. If there's clades that we want to promote, then talking about over-represented clades in a positive (and money-drawing) manner becomes a self-sabotage to this goal. You can't get anywhere if you don't have a good reason to show people why the idea you bring to the table should be considered over the leading idea. On the internet, thoughts compete for space in our brains whether we like it or not. It's best to be hygienic about our thoughts to have a clear mind on what's desired.
 

NachoB

NachoB
Mjmannella said:
My point is that if they want what they want, they should encourage others to support their cause so it becomes the majority view. That's what I mean by having a communal voice that gets the big idea through. Change minds to see what you want by being loud and persuasive.

This isn't related to representing animal families or utility in zoo construction. My point are thus:
  • We currently have 15 cats, and have gotten at least 1 cat as paid DLC every year post-launch (two of these cats repeat a species representation, but that's a separate issue). To say ocelots and serval are yet more cats is nothing short of a fact because ocelots and servals are objectively cats.
  • White-faced whistling ducks are useful for many types of enclosures a player might build, and it's hard to argue that this is false. Here's just a handful of ideas:
    • Amazon pavilions with other birds
    • Congo pavilions with other birds
    • Filler animals for larger Amazon species
    • Filler animals for larger Congo species
    • Petting zoos (yes, this is indeed a thing)
    • Duck ponds as set-dressing

The thing is that (and this is itself a super hot take) but maybe we need to have a deep look at the state of our animal roster to really calibrate what our thoughts and discussions should prioritise. If there's clades that we want to promote, then talking about over-represented clades in a positive (and money-drawing) manner becomes a self-sabotage to this goal. You can't get anywhere if you don't have a good reason to show people why the idea you bring to the table should be considered over the leading idea. On the internet, thoughts compete for space in our brains whether we like it or not. It's best to be hygienic about our thoughts to have a clear mind on what's desired.
Click to expand...
No matter the argument i could have to push the want for birds and primates, people are still going to ask for what they personally want. A lot of people are just mammal lovers (specially cats and dogs) and have no interest in birds or primates even if they are objectively lacking in variety and nothing anyone can say will change their particular wishes of getting more of their favorite.type of animals because that is what they enjoy playing with and building for.

I mean you just have to see at most people wishlist and see how type of animals we have in overabundance are still wish for: deer, caprids, cows, canids, bears, cats. They dominate most of the wishlists.

People just find mammals cuter.
 

Marvinb

Marvinb
9mzf1c.jpg
 

Marvinb

Marvinb
Mjmannella said:
I would legitimately pre-order a DLC pack that was 50 standard exhibit animals with a bunch of variety (arthropods, molluscs, non-avian reptiles, amphibians, non-tetrapod fish)
Click to expand...
Shouldnt it be non tetrapod vertebrates? Regardless, its always funny that fish dont really exist lol
 

Mjmannella

Mjmannella
I mean, fish and vertebrate may as well be synonyms, and I don’t think ”fish” needs to go away for monophyletic grouping 😛
I’m more-so conveying species like epaulette sharks, red-bellied piranhas, and African lungfish over more distant fishes like hagfish and lampreys
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom