Reptile Feeding Costs

Jacob1989 · Jan 22, 2020

Reptiles have much slower metabolisms compared to mammals and thus consume much less in food compared to their body size and less often. I believe this should be properly represented in the game, but unfortunately at the moment their food costs are comparable to mammals their own size.

There are many examples of reptile parks and farms around the world as well as sanctuaries that don't even sell tickets to guests and can house thousands of reptiles without going bankrupt. They can house numerous species, breed thousands and release them to the wild. There is a reason this can only be done with reptiles and not big cats, bears or elephants.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b_7hsaW6Ipc

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PKUcreC6tqw

This, unfortunately, can't be replicated in Planet Zoo, since keeping a crocodile is very costly, comparable to a big cat. This effect is even worse when they have offspring. If you were to try replicating a crocodile farm in Planet Zoo, you'd go bankrupt after just having a dozen offspring when in reality thousands can be kept irl for the same cost we have for a few in the game. Feeding a baby crocodile would cost less than a hundredth of an adult crocodile and in turn an adult crocodile would cost less than a tenth of a mammalian carnivore of comparable size, not to mention frequency.

On top of that, when you add the diminishing animal appeal effect with every additional animal of the same species, this becomes even more problematic. Honestly, not the same amount of people would visit a crocodile farm boasting thousands vs a tiny private property containing just one crocodile, which is unfortunately the case in the game right now.

The same logic should also apply to tortoise hydration requirements. They can go without food and water for many months and thus they were used as "live fridges" by sailors during age of discovery, which eventually led to the extirpation of many species of giant tortoise. This fix would also greatly help with dehydrated baby tortoises dying/having low welfare in the game. I'm not saying they should go without water for thirty years in-game time to match the ratio of irl examples, but could be extended several times to balance game-play.

Edit: When you consider the size differences in the poop of reptiles and mammals in the game, I figured this would be reflected in food costs as well, but unfortunately it's not.

Jileha · Jan 22, 2020

There are many examples of reptile parks and farms around the world as well as sanctuaries that don't even sell tickets to guests and can house thousands of reptiles without going bankrupt.

Even thousand of reptiles need a lot of food, staff and care, which all cost money. Somebody has to pay for that, maybe via donations and/or support by some organizations. A specialized reptile farm would probably not attract enough guests to make up the huge initial investment of building up the farm with all guest facilities and amenities required by law such as handicapped accessibility, parking spaces, toilets, emergency exits, etc. Then there is the difference between a setup that “sells a product” (in this case, the guest experience) and is therefore profit-oriented and a non-profit organization. Completely different laws and tax laws apply to each, and unless the public setup is very profitable, this is in most cases not even a viable option. A farm not open to the public can dedicate all its money and time on their main purpose and make everything functionable, which is not necessarily interesting or attractive to guests. Guests in general want to be catered to and see some scenery, not only in PZ, but also in real life!

I am a member of the California Wolf Center, which breeds gray wolves with the goal to re-introduce them into the wild. You can visit their facilities in very small groups at very restricted times by advanced reservation, and the organization largely depends on volunteers, donations and membership fees or one-time visits to their facilities. This organization functions somewhere in between, but you cannot really call it open to the public with all the restricitions - it’s more a by invitation only setup, and you have to line up to use the single restroom available on the premises. And I am sure they are governed by vastly different laws and regulations from a public zoo.

Apart from that, PZ is a game, not real life. A game with already extremely complex balances between needs, care and costs. Calculating each species’ metabolims rate and applying it to its needs/feeding times and food quantities is pushing it a bit and making a game that is based on already extremely complex interdependencies even more so - and adding the possibility of more bugs. E.g. What if you have your tortoises or nile monitors in the same habitat with other species? The keeper would need to be programmed for every possible combination in order not to neglect one of the species since a lot of species use the same food enrichments or food/water containers. As it is, the number of animals of each species in a given habitat is the only thing that needs to be taken into consideration. Everything else is constant.

Jacob1989 · Jan 23, 2020

Jileha said:
Even thousand of reptiles need a lot of food, staff and care, which all cost money. Somebody has to pay for that, maybe via donations and/or support by some organizations. A specialized reptile farm would probably not attract enough guests to make up the huge initial investment of building up the farm with all guest facilities and amenities required by law such as handicapped accessibility, parking spaces, toilets, emergency exits, etc. Then there is the difference between a setup that “sells a product” (in this case, the guest experience) and is therefore profit-oriented and a non-profit organization. Completely different laws and tax laws apply to each, and unless the public setup is very profitable, this is in most cases not even a viable option. A farm not open to the public can dedicate all its money and time on their main purpose and make everything functionable, which is not necessarily interesting or attractive to guests. Guests in general want to be catered to and see some scenery, not only in PZ, but also in real life!

I am a member of the California Wolf Center, which breeds gray wolves with the goal to re-introduce them into the wild. You can visit their facilities in very small groups at very restricted times by advanced reservation, and the organization largely depends on volunteers, donations and membership fees or one-time visits to their facilities. This organization functions somewhere in between, but you cannot really call it open to the public with all the restricitions - it’s more a by invitation only setup, and you have to line up to use the single restroom available on the premises. And I am sure they are governed by vastly different laws and regulations from a public zoo.

Apart from that, PZ is a game, not real life. A game with already extremely complex balances between needs, care and costs. Calculating each species’ metabolims rate and applying it to its needs/feeding times and food quantities is pushing it a bit and making a game that is based on already extremely complex interdependencies even more so - and adding the possibility of more bugs. E.g. What if you have your tortoises or nile monitors in the same habitat with other species? The keeper would need to be programmed for every possible combination in order not to neglect one of the species since a lot of species use the same food enrichments or food/water containers. As it is, the number of animals of each species in a given habitat is the only thing that needs to be taken into consideration. Everything else is constant.

What I had meant wasn't about scientifically calculating metabolic rates and then applying them accordingly. I even hinted towards possible gameplay issues that would bring if applied taking the exact ratios irl with my thirty year comment towards the end of the post.

That being said, varied food costs is already a thing in the game. All it takes to balance reptile food costs is by lowering them a ton even if you keep the frequency the same. Right now there is a lot of inconsistency with food costs between animals anyway (not just reptiles), so it is subject to change over time. Something I wanted to point out to before it is too late in terms of game development scheduling. Same with juvenile food costs, they are exactly the same as adults.

As for feeding frequencies, keepers follow a fixed schedule you set on the habitat settings, arrive, identify hunger rate and bring food. I am not hundred percent certain if the feeding frequency is constant with all animals right now, but let's assume it is as such. Since the keeper is going to keep returning to the mixed species habitat, they will identify the next batch of animals that are hungry and prepare food for those. If the player fails to set the schedule properly or have the keeper hut too far away, that's their problem for starving their animals. Taking poor player choices as reference to balance a game can result in disaster. This was already discussed in an earlier thread about keepers not cleaning habitats. People cried so much about hungry animals that they changed the intended keeper priorities and made them only food-centric which causes keepers running back and forth between the keeper hut and habitats without cleaning them. My point here is, player choices shouldn't take part in balancing a game. Other than that I don't see how the metabolism suggestion would introduce new problems as the code right now only takes into consideration how often keepers should visit a habitat and then to assess food levels to prepare separate foods for different species, instead of deciding how often to visit a habitat on their own using a separate code as seen in some other games. The latter would be harder to balance.

You also mentioned staff salaries and other running costs, but these have got nothing to do with my suggestion here. I was just discussing balancing a single factor and keeping the rest the same. Even in real life, that single factor (food costs) can determine how big a facility you can run using the same resources. Which is why you don't see admission-free facilities housing hundreds of lions very often.

DrBurrito · Jan 27, 2020

Jacob1989 · Jan 28, 2020

DrBurrito said:
I noticed the same thing some time ago, and it's not only for reptiles. However, with reptiles it is quite noticeable indeed. Here's the list I've made so far regarding food costs:

Food Costs | Quality1 | Quality2 | Quality3
Aardvark | 250.20
African Buffalo | 260.10
African Elephant | 3000.00
African Wild Dog | 325.20
Aldabra Tortoise | 56.40
American Bison | 290.10
Arctic Wolf | 750.00
Bactrian Camel | 200.10
Baird's Tapir | 90.00
Bengal Tiger | 1750.20
Black Wildebeest | 42.00
Bongo | 120.00
Bonobo | 250.20
Bornean Orangutan | 1500.00
Cheetah | 375.00
Chinese Pangolin | 31.50
Common Ostrich | 500.10
Common Warthog | 40.20
Dall Sheep | 45.00
Formosan Black Bear | 240.00
Galapagos Tortoise | 75.00
Gemsbok | 100.20
Gharial | 600.00
Giant Panda | 1200.00
Greater Flamingo | 9.60
Grizzly Bear | 1200.00
Himalayan Brown Bear | 720.00
Hippopotamus | 230.10
Indian Elephant | 2000.10
Indian Peafowl | 12.60
Indian Rhinoceros | 93.90
Japanese Macaque | 420.00
Komodo Dragon | 375.00
Mandrill | 375.00
Nile Monitor | 45.00
Nyala | 45.00
Okapi | 50.10
Plains Zebra | 65.10
Polar Bear | 5000.00
Pronghorn | 20.10
Pygmy Hippo | 60.00
Red Panda | 100.20
Red Ruffed Lemur | 125.10
Reindeer | 60.00
Reticulated Giraffe | 360.00
Ring Tailed Lemur | 115.20
Sable Antelope | 190.20
Saltwater Crocodile | 500.10
Siberian Tiger | 1750.20
Snow Leopard | 375.00
Spotted Hyena | 500.10
Springbok | 20.10
Thomson's Gazelle | 9.90
Timber Wolf | 750.00
West African Lion | 2500.20
Western Chimpanzee | 375.00
Western Lowland Gorilla | 1875.00

Please note that it's still incomplete (only has quality 1 complete) and apologies for the weird format since it doesn't let me add tables to existing text or use more spacing.

There are indeed huge discrepancies between similar sized animals having similar metabolisms. However, like I mentioned, I don't think this is final, so I'm not making a huge fuss out of it. I'm pretty sure we'll have a more decent list when they are done balancing the game. I do have several other data sheets I will share with the community in future threads.

Thanks, that's very informative. It actually made me notice that the inconsistencies people are complaining about in various threads about various topics, let it be space, foliage, biome requirements, barrier grades or food costs, are actually quite widespread due to the same reasons. It is either for testing purposes for future balancing like you optimistically predict, or there is inadequate communication between developers during the decision making process.

Ashen Shugar · Jan 30, 2020

Feeding costs are ridiculous

Red Ruffed Lemur | 125.10
Ring Tailed Lemur | 115.20
Japanese Macaque | 420.00
Bornean Orangutan | 1500.00

Is the Macaque & orangutan's fruit bought in North Korea?

Jacob1989 · Jan 30, 2020

Ashen Shugar said:
Feeding costs are ridiculous

Red Ruffed Lemur | 125.10
Ring Tailed Lemur | 115.20
Japanese Macaque | 420.00
Bornean Orangutan | 1500.00

Is the Macaque & orangutan's fruit bought in North Korea?

LOL good joke, but true. Yeah I would expect macaque food costs being much lower than that of great apes like bonobos and chimps, yet it's higher. Looks like bonobo and chimp still have beta figures while macaque was updated during the challenge. I wish they'd update all of them at once so it wouldn't create discrepancies like that. Gorilla, orangutan and macaque food costs seem comparable, meaning they are using the same method of calculation, and then chimps and bonobos are using a whole different set of variables.

Same with other groups. Let's take large herbivores as an example. Elephants have "updated" figures yet hippos, rhinos and giraffes have "outdated" figures. Same with big cats. Lions and tigers have updated figures even though tigers shouldn't really be lower than lions, yet snow leopard and cheetah have reptile level food costs.

They should be consistently high or consistently low relative to body weight, metabolism and food type. If all were updated at once it would be easier to balance the game imo, as they'd know how much to bump up donations, shop revenue and admissions to counter the costs.

Adarra · Feb 2, 2020

A Polar Bear costs FIVE THOUSAND PER FEED? What the actual F? I already suspected the food costs were way out of proportion when looking at my own zoos, but this? What the heck? How can a Giant Panda and a Grizzly Bear cost the same to feed? Why is an Orangutan so expensive? Yes, they're larger than the other listed lemurs/monkeys (or apes? I'm sorry, I'm not certain about those names), but come on, well over three times as expensive? Well, now at least I know why my zoo is going bankrupt. Insane. Absolutely insane.

DrBurrito · Feb 4, 2020

Adarra said:
A Polar Bear costs FIVE THOUSAND PER FEED? What the actual F? I already suspected the food costs were way out of proportion when looking at my own zoos, but this? What the heck? How can a Giant Panda and a Grizzly Bear cost the same to feed? Why is an Orangutan so expensive? Yes, they're larger than the other listed lemurs/monkeys (or apes? I'm sorry, I'm not certain about those names), but come on, well over three times as expensive? Well, now at least I know why my zoo is going bankrupt. Insane. Absolutely insane.

And that's only level 1 and per bear. If you have two adults and two cubs, it'll cost you 20k with level 1 feeding.

Ashen Shugar · Feb 5, 2020

Adarra said:
A Polar Bear costs FIVE THOUSAND PER FEED? What the actual F? I already suspected the food costs were way out of proportion when looking at my own zoos, but this? What the heck? How can a Giant Panda and a Grizzly Bear cost the same to feed? Why is an Orangutan so expensive? Yes, they're larger than the other listed lemurs/monkeys (or apes? I'm sorry, I'm not certain about those names), but come on, well over three times as expensive? Well, now at least I know why my zoo is going bankrupt. Insane. Absolutely insane.

What is worse is this is a DLC animal, now you have paid extra for an animal that can bankrupt your zoo faster...w.t.f.

NL_Mutso · Feb 5, 2020

Reptiles aren't that expensive if you have only a few.
Like in many zoos, you only see a few matures in 1 habitat.

I think the major issue is the feeding costs for juvenile animals. Haven't checked this properly but my experience is that it doesn't make a difference for the costs.
Reptilians breed a lot better and more. Not putting your crocs/gharials on birth control, can bankrupt a starting zoo easily...
I think they should halve the costs for juvenile animals in your habitat. Makes more sense to me.

I think a "Tier"-rating would help to distinguish the easy/cheap animals with the advanced/expensive animals. I consider Lions/elephants/polar bears/Giant Panda as animals for more advanced/profitable zoos.

Jacob1989 · Feb 5, 2020

NL_Mutso said:
Reptiles aren't that expensive if you have only a few.
Like in many zoos, you only see a few matures in 1 habitat.

I think the major issue is the feeding costs for juvenile animals. Haven't checked this properly but my experience is that it doesn't make a difference for the costs.
Reptilians breed a lot better and more. Not putting your crocs/gharials on birth control, can bankrupt a starting zoo easily...
I think they should halve the costs for juvenile animals in your habitat. Makes more sense to me.

I think a "Tier"-rating would help to distinguish the easy/cheap animals with the advanced/expensive animals. I consider Lions/elephants/polar bears/Giant Panda as animals for more advanced/profitable zoos.

Yes, juveniles cost exactly the same as adults. Even for tiny tortoises and crocs. On top of that reptiles are more costly to feed than it should be, so that makes it worse. A tortoise wouldn't cost nearly as much as an antelope or a croc twice that of a snow leopard, let alone the frequency.

DrBurrito · Feb 7, 2020

NL_Mutso said:
Reptiles aren't that expensive if you have only a few.
Like in many zoos, you only see a few matures in 1 habitat.

If you look at the list, even having few adults per enclosure is out of proportion in terms of food costs for reptiles when compared to endothermic carnivorans.

NL_Mutso · Feb 7, 2020

DrBurrito said:
If you look at the list, even having few adults per enclosure is out of proportion in terms of food costs for reptiles when compared to endothermic carnivorans.

Well that's because they have the same metabolism in-game - if they changed that, that would be good and more accurate.
I've read in a different food discussion that the Komodo Dragon eats a lot in a short period but is able to not eat again for several weeks.
So a expensive spike seems logical but you shouldn't have a similar spike anytime soon.

And juveniles should cost less, even less than the 50% I mentioned earlier - for reptiles even 10% of the adult costs?
Even though I prefer realistic figures (and they would cost a lot less than 10%), that would make keeping reptiles too easy.. They are already very profitable.

I don't know if a reptile farm is the intention of a zoo game, but I understand the whole discussion. The other option would be making other carnivores more expensive

.

I start most zoos with the reptiles because they are cheap/low costs and very profitable. The crocodile/gharial is among the first 4 species.
It only becomes a problem when you forget to put them on anticonception pills

DrBurrito · Feb 7, 2020

NL_Mutso said:
Well that's because they have the same metabolism in-game - if they changed that, that would be good and more accurate.
I've read in a different food discussion that the Komodo Dragon eats a lot in a short period but is able to not eat again for several weeks.
So a expensive spike seems logical but you shouldn't have a similar spike anytime soon.

And juveniles should cost less, even less than the 50% I mentioned earlier - for reptiles even 10% of the adult costs?
Even though I prefer realistic figures (and they would cost a lot less than 10%), that would make keeping reptiles too easy.. They are already very profitable.

I don't know if a reptile farm is the intention of a zoo game, but I understand the whole discussion. The other option would be making other carnivores more expensive .

I start most zoos with the reptiles because they are cheap/low costs and very profitable. The crocodile/gharial is among the first 4 species.
It only becomes a problem when you forget to put them on anticonception pills

It is true that the main problem is the cost absurdity per metabolic rate (represented by the feeding frequency in the game), but if it is impossible to change that as someone pointed out earlier, this should at least be reflected in the food cost per feeding. That being said, the amount of food they'd require would also be lower per body size even with less frequent feedings; feeding them amounts similar to endotherms in the long run would be unhealthy even though they can potentially eat it. It is a matter of how much they require/should be eating rather than how much they can potentially eat in one sitting. They can sure gorge on huge carcasses but then they go for months without food in the wild.

This is why even if we get a metabolic rate fix (less frequent feedings) the food costs should still be lower. If we can't get the said fix due to game design issues, then, the amount should be lowered twice. The profitability issue can easily be countered with relatively less appeal. As for the juveniles, the values you gave (50% for mammals, 10% for reptiles) were exactly what I had in mind even if the actual values would be lower in real life. However they are solid ratios for a game where the small juvenile model size is representative of all stages until adulthood. As for juvenile appeal, nobody would really care much about a few hundred small crocs when their 5 meter+ dad is in the next enclosure, unlike the additional appeal a bear or tiger cub would have on guests. With this in mind, they can add a lowering effect on juvenile reptile appeal vs an increased effect for mammalian babies. This would counter the additional profitability baby reptiles would cause with their 10% feeding costs.

One might argue baby crocs are also cute and thus they would have high appeal, which is true, but only for a few weeks after hatching. Then they become the generic small crocodilian for decades until they have that extra appeal as large adults again. If you have ever been to places like Gatorland you can easily observe this amongst guests. The slow growth rate makes the large adults rare vs the rare sight of a tiger or bear cub since they grow very quick (or rarely have offspring and just one - like elephants) and thus most individuals you see are fully grown adults. This is why high appeal for mammalian young vs lower appeal for reptilian young makes a lot of sense as well as a step towards balancing the game.

NL_Mutso · Feb 7, 2020

If it's impossible, lowering food costs looks like a great alternative.

I think the overall idea over making in-game stuff cheaper, makes the game too easy. If they lower the food costs, the donations should be lower as well.
It's really easy to make a lot of money.
I'm all for realism in this game (or as much as possible) but balancing the game is important.

But for some animals (like the Macaques) costs seems a bit too much..

Jileha · Feb 7, 2020

NL_Mutso said:
Reptiles aren't that expensive if you have only a few.
Like in many zoos, you only see a few matures in 1 habitat.

I think the major issue is the feeding costs for juvenile animals. Haven't checked this properly but my experience is that it doesn't make a difference for the costs.
Reptilians breed a lot better and more. Not putting your crocs/gharials on birth control, can bankrupt a starting zoo easily...
I think they should halve the costs for juvenile animals in your habitat. Makes more sense to me.

I think a "Tier"-rating would help to distinguish the easy/cheap animals with the advanced/expensive animals. I consider Lions/elephants/polar bears/Giant Panda as animals for more advanced/profitable zoos.

Have you ever had kittens? They eat more than the grown ups! My male kitten actually ate twice as much as the grown up female. They need all the energy to grow and constantly race around and play. Once they’re grown up, they spend much more time sleeping.

Jacob1989 · Feb 8, 2020

Jileha said:
Have you ever had kittens? They eat more than the grown ups! My male kitten actually ate twice as much as the grown up female. They need all the energy to grow and constantly race around and play. Once they’re grown up, they spend much more time sleeping.

I think there might more than one factor contributing to that. Otherwise I don't see how the daily calorie need of a kitten would be higher, even with the growth factor.

Sure they do have increased food intake for every ounce of body weight, just like humans but the daily requirement would surpass adults only at "teen stage" when they are of comparable size, again just like humans.

DrBurrito · Feb 8, 2020

NL_Mutso said:
If it's impossible, lowering food costs looks like a great alternative.

I think the overall idea over making in-game stuff cheaper, makes the game too easy. If they lower the food costs, the donations should be lower as well.
It's really easy to make a lot of money.
I'm all for realism in this game (or as much as possible) but balancing the game is important.

But for some animals (like the Macaques) costs seems a bit too much..

Agree 100% balancing is top priority. This is why I came up with the idea to limit donation and shop profits before responding to the food costs solution itself. Adjusting juvenile food costs would actually help balance the excess shopping needs of guests some people were complaining about in some other thread.

As for the macaques, their value appears to be "new" just like the orangutan and gorilla, meanwhile the two chimps still appear to have beta figures. I guess they are still doing some testing with how to balance the economy in the game, thus we still have two versions to food costs - half the animals have outdated figures, half updated. They'll have to opt with one method and update the rest accordingly only to update profits again with either decision.

NL_Mutso · Feb 8, 2020

Jileha said:
Have you ever had kittens? They eat more than the grown ups! My male kitten actually ate twice as much as the grown up female. They need all the energy to grow and constantly race around and play. Once they’re grown up, they spend much more time sleeping.

Yeah, I love kittens/cats - i have a couple and is a quite popular pet in my entire family.. Very experienced with cats..
My experience: they certainly don't eat more than grown ups.. I used to measure the daily food I gave to my kittens/cats - so pretty confident about this one..
"Puberty/teen" stage, really depends. They change their attitude - playfull/hunting/relaxing often during this phase.
Kittens do eat more regularly because they are very energetic and have small stomachs..

Most of this is al depends on the quality of food you give them and the right type..
When I buy good quality, they eat less (and in the long run a lot cheaper) and cheaper quality (supermarket) a lot more.
A lot of people start with poor quality (like whiskas kitten food) and end up with better food when they mature - so it's really difficult to compare the nutrional values.

My adult females eats more than a male kittens. (same brand but different type of food - kitten/adult/senior)
My male adult is pretty big/heavy/not fat and eats a lot in one more go, sleeps a lot more - while the female spreads it out evenly over the day (small bites every 1 or 2 hours).

Really depends on how active they are and most of my cats were/are active.. Some of my cats were/are hunters and eat a lot less because they feed on other stuff as well.
Atm, my 10 year old female is only slightly less active than my sister's 1 year old. One of the best hunters I've ever had - even birds almost half her size.