I don't think we have really discussed it yet, I think we will probably need to wait and see what the list looks like when its out, I think with all the attention they have been getting plus potential improved mechanics in the sequel people are more likely to vote for groups that were underrepresented on the meta wishlists for the first game like birds and monkeys
Preparing for PZ2 metawishlist
- Thread starter Stygi
- Start date
If there must be groupings, make it consistently at the family level regardless of taxa.
I think we can make them using common sense. Like, the sloths are in different families but it makes sense to group them.
Then you’re making arbitrary decisions with the data you’re collecting. Despite what you might believe, “common sense” is not objective.
I'm gonna throw my hat in quickly, regarding subspecies debate.
Of course, since I won't be participating in creating this wishlist, I really don't want to insist on my opinion, since it would be taseless.
I just want to say, as "user" of Meta Wishlist, that to me subspecies are matter of night and day.
Animals like Siberian Tiger, Amur Leopard, European Brown Bear would be my top 5 votes. While something like Bengal Tiger, Indian Leopard, Syrian Brown Bear wouldn't even make it on extended version of extended list. Oscillations are sharp.
-
Other thing is what happens to subspecies, if Frontier decides to keep doing things like they did with PZ? There are subspecies of an animal in game, but you prefer the other ones, would that mean you would be unable to vote for it, or gamble your vote for general species, and might still not get what you asked for, while paradoxically at the same time voting for it.
Say base PZ has only Bengal Tiger, and you still want Sumatran Tiger to make it into the game, but on Meta Wishlist you can only vote for "Tiger". Many people vote, Tiger is of top of the wishlist, and next DLC brings in Siberian Tiger. That's not what you voted for, and it won't help "cover the niche".
Edit: Took out last paragraph, repetitive and redundant
Of course, since I won't be participating in creating this wishlist, I really don't want to insist on my opinion, since it would be taseless.
I just want to say, as "user" of Meta Wishlist, that to me subspecies are matter of night and day.
Animals like Siberian Tiger, Amur Leopard, European Brown Bear would be my top 5 votes. While something like Bengal Tiger, Indian Leopard, Syrian Brown Bear wouldn't even make it on extended version of extended list. Oscillations are sharp.
-
Other thing is what happens to subspecies, if Frontier decides to keep doing things like they did with PZ? There are subspecies of an animal in game, but you prefer the other ones, would that mean you would be unable to vote for it, or gamble your vote for general species, and might still not get what you asked for, while paradoxically at the same time voting for it.
Say base PZ has only Bengal Tiger, and you still want Sumatran Tiger to make it into the game, but on Meta Wishlist you can only vote for "Tiger". Many people vote, Tiger is of top of the wishlist, and next DLC brings in Siberian Tiger. That's not what you voted for, and it won't help "cover the niche".
Edit: Took out last paragraph, repetitive and redundant
The best data is impartial to bias. I want to see an aggregation that is objective and consistent made by people making informed decisions to give the most qualitative data possible. Information matters, subjectivity undermines the integrity of the information that could be generated by this community.
A few more things from me. Firstly, I think it would make sense to have seperate lists for new and old species... A list solely for new species people want to see and then a list for old species which people suggest what species currently in PZ are the most important to them... That way if there is cuts, it should hopefully guide Frontier in a way to see which species people think are most important to keep.
On to the whole subspecies debate thing, I sympathise with both positions and personally I don't mind which side ends up being taken. Subspecies aren't important to me personally. One thing I will say though is that the scientific name argument really isn't helpful, taxonomy is always changing and there are many subspecies that are disputed to even be valid and then there is arguments over which genera some species are in (think the Bos/Bison debate... And thank god we already have dingos or that would be a nightmare). It also doesn't account for domestic breeds at all.
On to the whole subspecies debate thing, I sympathise with both positions and personally I don't mind which side ends up being taken. Subspecies aren't important to me personally. One thing I will say though is that the scientific name argument really isn't helpful, taxonomy is always changing and there are many subspecies that are disputed to even be valid and then there is arguments over which genera some species are in (think the Bos/Bison debate... And thank god we already have dingos or that would be a nightmare). It also doesn't account for domestic breeds at all.
What they said ^
Honestly, I think subspecies is very important to for the wishlist, and matters immensely, because at the end of the day it is the subspecies that will make it into the game.
Like… we WON’T get simply ‘tiger’ added to the game. But we MIGHT get ‘Amur Tiger’ and ‘Bengal Tiger’. So SURELY it matters that we can vote for subspecies, to ensure we are giving support to and hopefully GETTING the ‘right’ ones.
I for one would not be interested in looking at or contributing to a wishlist in which I am confined simply to voting for ‘brown bear’. Because I DON’T want, for example, ‘brown bear’ in game. I want ‘Eurasian Brown Bear’.
I don't know about this idea of separate wishlists, it's hard enough to convince enough people to vote on 1 wishlist and pray they actually read the rules of what the wishlist is actually about. In theory for long time forum users, multiple wishlists is great, a fantastic work to split the work and not confuse old and new animals, subspecies etc. but come on, in practise? The "main" wishlist will be focused by the majority of casual voters.
I just want to add that my previous comments are in no way targeted to anyone or want to participate in creating such a wishlist. I would have no time with all the planet zoo stuff I do and also my wishlist I'm running is a lot of manual work without all this code stuff you guys are talking about. I have to sift through each and every vote and manually either merge it with an existing suggestion or create a new one and after that create a brief description for each suggestion. I'm just trying to voice my opinion over some long running issues of what I feel is "wrong" with the metawishlist, and well I'm met with a slightly hostile welcome.
I just want to add that my previous comments are in no way targeted to anyone or want to participate in creating such a wishlist. I would have no time with all the planet zoo stuff I do and also my wishlist I'm running is a lot of manual work without all this code stuff you guys are talking about. I have to sift through each and every vote and manually either merge it with an existing suggestion or create a new one and after that create a brief description for each suggestion. I'm just trying to voice my opinion over some long running issues of what I feel is "wrong" with the metawishlist, and well I'm met with a slightly hostile welcome.
It definitely will scientific names will be worse then just figuring out how to sort the common names.
No we cant because then it becomes a case of what is the exception every will have different opinions of what counts and what doesnt and it will be inconsistent both to the users and the people making the lists its either all subspecies or none and the concesus seems to be none
I also agree what we do needs to be consistent in order to make the data the best representation
I think families are probably the best way to group animals if we must though im in favour of just not grouping them
If we group it has to be consistent making groups of differing sizes and spans is a good way to add bias into the data and will just cause arguments as to what should be grouped together and what shouldnt
If we try to please everyone, we're going to please nobody. It sounds unmanageable as it is with people wanting 150-200 animals of basically any category.
There are quite a few posts here from people demanding more, unnecessary work who have not expressed a willingness to commit a serious amount of time to the project over an extended period of time. There are also posts minimizing my concerns and the effort I've personally spent dealing with issues with the metawishlist's current format. I'm drawing a boundary with what I'm willing to commit to. This is not a personal attack on you.
I understand that subspecies are important to some people, and I'm all for having that conversation elsewhere. However, trying to track that in the main wishlist is doing too much. I see them as different objectives.
To try and appease those that want subspecies included we could always link to a separate thread where subspecies can be discussed in the main post for the meta wishlist
Agreed with the above.
Subspecies are not a huge deal for me, in fact, I only included them to please the masses but it only adds more complexity and headaches.
@SuzieSky btw, my questions were just to sound you out and and get to know your opinion better, nothing more
I'm pleased to see you and other people are keen on doing this at all, whatever format you guys choose eventually.
I think there are valid arguments in favour of asking for >150 animals but also 100 or below. I hope a consensus is reached on this one
Subspecies are not a huge deal for me, in fact, I only included them to please the masses but it only adds more complexity and headaches.
@SuzieSky btw, my questions were just to sound you out and and get to know your opinion better, nothing more
I'm pleased to see you and other people are keen on doing this at all, whatever format you guys choose eventually. I think there are valid arguments in favour of asking for >150 animals but also 100 or below. I hope a consensus is reached on this one
I don't have an opinion on what the species maximum should be. All I'll say is that your maximum directly determines your workload.
Just so it's in writing, if a sequel is ever announced I would like to and plan on curating the bird wishlist.
No arguments here, you might be more obsessed with birds than any other member on this forum. More obsessed with ducks at the very least.
Personally I’m fine with simplifying what we need to simplify. Personal gripes are fine, but in terms of curation it’s best to go with what can be easily managed.
I’m fine with no subspecies, my question is what do we do with exhibit animals? Personally I think combine everything into one list. Even if gameplay wise it’s a different thing, the red eye tree frog is an essential zoo animal in my eyes. Same with something like a scarlet macaw or toco toucan.
For ease of sorting the list I’m fine removing subspecies, not separating new and old animals, and just kind of making a list of every animal. So when we make a list of 100-200 of the most important animals for PZ2 we don’t have to worry about “oh sorry, no exhibit animals”.
I’m fine with no subspecies, my question is what do we do with exhibit animals? Personally I think combine everything into one list. Even if gameplay wise it’s a different thing, the red eye tree frog is an essential zoo animal in my eyes. Same with something like a scarlet macaw or toco toucan.
For ease of sorting the list I’m fine removing subspecies, not separating new and old animals, and just kind of making a list of every animal. So when we make a list of 100-200 of the most important animals for PZ2 we don’t have to worry about “oh sorry, no exhibit animals”.
I think we should leave it to voters to decide what they consider to be habitat or exhibit animals, as no objective criteria exist