Should Carnivores make some room for other animals in future DLCs?

[SalamAnders]

Not sure how many people will agree with me on this, but we have seen at least one often two carnivores* in every DLC so far (not counting Deluxe). While there still are plenty of good choices to add within this order and I personally also have some carnivores I hope to see, this group of animals is just very well represented by now compared to many others.

I'm not saying we shouldn't see any more of them, I just don't think it is reasonable for them to keep taking half of the habitat animal spots in a pack, which has happened several times. I think a maximum of 1 carnivore in 4+1 packs and 2 in animal packs would greatly benefit some other groups of animals.

Hope I'm not alone with this opinion.

*With carnivores I mean members of the order Carnivora

 

[TheYeti]

I somehow agree with your point, especially since zoos are unlikely to have many large carnivores in the same zoo. I've rarely seen zoos with more than one bear species for example.

However, I do believe carnivores may be essential from a marketing point of view. Every DLC needs at least one charismatic, well-known high-demand animal, which is often a carnivore. However, with all the DLCs we have so far, I have a hard time thinking of any essential carnivores that we still miss, except for perhaps the leopard.

Then comes another problem, which is that carnivores will have to be replaced by another animal. Looking at the wishlist, this is most likely gonna be an ungulate or a primate, both of which are also quite highly represented already. Off course, many people like me would like to see more birds and reptiles, but I don't think Frontier would have gotten much positive feedback if they decided to, say, replace the cougar by a turkey, the clouded leopard by a water monitor, or the badger by a white stork. While I do believe other animals should be represented more, it will be hard in the current DLC format as some groups (carnivores, ungulates, primates) will in most cases be the most popular animals and thus get a spot.

 

[SalamAnders]

It is a difficult topic to discuss, because how do you even compare taxonomy? It feels logical to compare an order with another order, but the number of species within each order just various too much for that to make sense. The order Tubulidentata is 100% completed, since the Aardvark is the only living member of it, so if you look at that Carnivora is far behind. On the other hand, the biggest mammalian order the rodents only got two species in the game so they are far behind the carnivores.

Plus you also have to consider the popularity and what is realistic to find in zoos and carnivores are ranking high here. So it makes sense that we see a lot of carnivores and keep getting more, but the fact that they keep making it into every pack and often with more than one species seems a bit over the top to me.

While yes we do have a lot of primates, we still lack a lot of monkeys. We have only seen primates in 2 DLCs + the anniversary. While they probably aren't quite as popular as carnivores among the general public, they are more or less as important zoo animals.

Something just seems to be a bit unbalanced here. Even though it is a bit hard to point out exactly where it gets unfair. Hope that makes sense.

 

[Aramar]

I like the balance of the Europe pack:
1 carnivore
2 herbivores
1 omnivore

I think it's difficult to create a pack with only herbivores in which the animals are very different from each other. From a marketing point of view you need diversity, and carnivores are easier to sell in my opinion.

 

[SalamAnders]

I like the balance of the Europe pack:
1 carnivore
2 herbivores
1 omnivore

I think it's difficult to create a pack with only herbivores in which the animals are very different from each other. From a marketing point of view you need diversity, and carnivores are easier to sell in my opinion.

While the badger is an omnivore it is still a member of the Carnivora order which was my point. It would make a lot of sense to add a carnivorous bird as an example

 

[ElectricMonk]

I’m ok with 1 carnivore (the order not the diet) from each pack, except from the Australia pack where I think a third marsupial would have been better than the dingo.

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

He didnt speak about their diet, but the taxonomic group. Carnivora is the group that most of the carnivores mammaks belong to, dogs, cats, bears, mustelid, pinipeds, all of them.
Amd hes right, there is an unballance but the thing is, so far i feel like none of the carnivore choices were bad, even the arctic wolf is quite the nice animal in the aftermath.
The only pack that should have been Carnivora free was the australia pack, but here we are.
The rest was mostly even headlined by carnivoras and brought some very nice animals into the game.
I would put my hand on fire, defending every single carnivora inclusion so far, eventhough i myself would see me rather as an ungulate enjoyer then a carnivoran fan.
But ungulates arnt really the problem, birds and rodents are the two groups that have been shafted the most and i really hope that atleast a porcupine, hare/bunny and marmot will still make it, aswell as the aviary dlc and hopefully some waterfpwl.
We dont have pelicans, swans, ducks,geese or emus, thats borderline criminal.
But hopefully, this will change in the future as most groundwork carnivorans are in the game already, leaving out only a leopard, wolverine, fossa, red fox, maned wolf, spectacle bears and maybe some more small cats, which just shows how many great carnivorans are their to add to the game.
Its a really tricky problem that can only be solved with times or more animals packs, that restrict the number of carnivorans as SEA had 4, with the binturong and the dhole being amazing and way more usefull then weird bear and buggy cat, and northamerica had 3.
And thats the "problem".
Carnivorans are just great, especally dogs are amongst the most versatile animals we have in the game.
I would claim that the dhole is the most versatile and flexible animal in the game, as it embodys the qualitys of its order in one animal. Wide habitat and biome distribution, ajustable to mlst temperatures, both amazing as a centerpiece or filler animal, fills the important role of second fiddle to the more flashy carnivores, making then fit as support for tiger, bear, leopard, elephant, basicly everything in its reign because its just so good.
I think you get my point.
Tdlr: Their arnt to many carnivorans, carnivorans are just so usefull and appealing, carnivorans alone can fill most roles (aboreal, nocturnal, aquatic, all biomes, centerpiece, filler, cute, cool, scary, etc), are great to bring diversity into dlcs, but are also heavily overused in animal packs, dholes are the best and i love them♡

 

[SalamAnders]

He didnt speak about their diet, but the taxonomic group. Carnivora is the group that most of the carnivores mammaks belong to, dogs, cats, bears, mustelid, pinipeds, all of them.
Amd hes right, there is an unballance but the thing is, so far i feel like none of the carnivore choices were bad, even the arctic wolf is quite the nice animal in the aftermath.
The only pack that should have been Carnivora free was the australia pack, but here we are.
The rest was mostly even headlined by carnivoras and brought some very nice animals into the game.
I would put my hand on fire, defending every single carnivora inclusion so far, eventhough i myself would see me rather as an ungulate enjoyer then a carnivoran fan.
But ungulates arnt really the problem, birds and rodents are the two groups that have been shafted the most and i really hope that atleast a porcupine, hare/bunny and marmot will still make it, aswell as the aviary dlc and hopefully some waterfpwl.
We dont have pelicans, swans, ducks,geese or emus, thats borderline criminal.
But hopefully, this will change in the future as most groundwork carnivorans are in the game already, leaving out only a leopard, wolverine, fossa, red fox, maned wolf, spectacle bears and maybe some more small cats, which just shows how many great carnivorans are their to add to the game.
Its a really tricky problem that can only be solved with times or more animals packs, that restrict the number of carnivorans as SEA had 4, with the binturong and the dhole being amazing and way more usefull then weird bear and buggy cat, and northamerica had 3.
And thats the "problem".
Carnivorans are just great, especally dogs are amongst the most versatile animals we have in the game.
I would claim that the dhole is the most versatile and flexible animal in the game, as it embodys the qualitys of its order in one animal. Wide habitat and biome distribution, ajustable to mlst temperatures, both amazing as a centerpiece or filler animal, fills the important role of second fiddle to the more flashy carnivores, making then fit as support for tiger, bear, leopard, elephant, basicly everything in its reign because its just so good.
I think you get my point.
Tdlr: Their arnt to many carnivorans, carnivorans are just so usefull and appealing, carnivorans alone can fill most roles (aboreal, nocturnal, aquatic, all biomes, centerpiece, filler, cute, cool, scary, etc), are great to bring diversity into dlcs, but are also heavily overused in animal packs, dholes are the best and i love them♡

You are completely right. This was also not so much a complain about the amount of carnivores in the past DLCs, more a wish for them to start going a bit more easy on that category in future DLCs, so the more lacking areas can get a few more spots.

 

[Aramar]

While the badger is an omnivore it is still a member of the Carnivora order which was my point. It would make a lot of sense to add a carnivorous bird as an example

I know, but my point is that I personally make a difference between 100 % carnivorous animals and omnivorous, and I would even say piscivorous animals too. For me, a pack with several 100% carnivores only could be too many meat-eating animals, but a pack with a mix of 100 % carnivore + omnivore + piscivore + herbivore is well balanced. Of course, this is just my opinion and I still want more herbivores.

 

[ElectricMonk]

I know, but my point is that I personally make a difference between 100 % carnivorous animals and omnivorous, and I would even say piscivorous animals too. For me, a pack with several 100% carnivores only could be too many meat-eating animals, but a pack with a mix of 100 % carnivore + omnivore + piscivore + herbivore is well balanced. Of course, this is just my opinion and I still want more herbivores.

But they’re not talking about diet at all - they’re talking about taxonomy (the order the animals belong to). They are saying that members of the order Carvivora are over represented. Most members of the order eat only meat (dogs, cats etc.) some eat only fish (otters) some are vegetarian (pandas) but all of these are members of the order Carnivora. Similarly, many animals that are not in the order Carnivora eat only meat (many reptiles, birds, marsupials, etc.). A pack with 1 herbivore, 1 omnivore, 1 piscivore and 1 carnivore would not be well balanced if all were members of the order Carnivora.

 

[Aramar]

But they’re not talking about diet at all - they’re talking about taxonomy (the order the animals belong to). They are saying that members of the order Carvivora are over represented. Most members of the order eat only meat (dogs, cats etc.) some eat only fish (otters) some are vegetarian (pandas) but all of these are members of the order Carnivora. Similarly, many animals that are not in the order Carnivora eat only meat (many reptiles, birds, marsupials, etc.). A pack with 1 herbivore, 1 omnivore, 1 piscivore and 1 carnivore would not be well balanced if all were members of the order Carnivora.

Ah ok, now I understand. In that case, I think that most players like me, who are no experts in the field, don't care about if a pack is balanced in terms of order of the animal. We just focus on more simple/evident things like diet/biome/look.

 

[ElectricMonk]

. We just focus on more simple/evident things like diet/biome/look.

Fair enough but, broadly speaking (with notable exceptions), members of the same order, in general, look similar to each other (compared other orders). I.e. a cat, wolf, bear and mink look more similar to each other than to a deer, a monkey or a rat.

 

[SanRazo618]

He didnt speak about their diet, but the taxonomic group. Carnivora is the group that most of the carnivores mammaks belong to, dogs, cats, bears, mustelid, pinipeds, all of them.
Amd hes right, there is an unballance but the thing is, so far i feel like none of the carnivore choices were bad, even the arctic wolf is quite the nice animal in the aftermath.
The only pack that should have been Carnivora free was the australia pack, but here we are.
The rest was mostly even headlined by carnivoras and brought some very nice animals into the game.
I would put my hand on fire, defending every single carnivora inclusion so far, eventhough i myself would see me rather as an ungulate enjoyer then a carnivoran fan.
But ungulates arnt really the problem, birds and rodents are the two groups that have been shafted the most and i really hope that atleast a porcupine, hare/bunny and marmot will still make it, aswell as the aviary dlc and hopefully some waterfpwl.
We dont have pelicans, swans, ducks,geese or emus, thats borderline criminal.
But hopefully, this will change in the future as most groundwork carnivorans are in the game already, leaving out only a leopard, wolverine, fossa, red fox, maned wolf, spectacle bears and maybe some more small cats, which just shows how many great carnivorans are their to add to the game.
Its a really tricky problem that can only be solved with times or more animals packs, that restrict the number of carnivorans as SEA had 4, with the binturong and the dhole being amazing and way more usefull then weird bear and buggy cat, and northamerica had 3.
And thats the "problem".
Carnivorans are just great, especally dogs are amongst the most versatile animals we have in the game.
I would claim that the dhole is the most versatile and flexible animal in the game, as it embodys the qualitys of its order in one animal. Wide habitat and biome distribution, ajustable to mlst temperatures, both amazing as a centerpiece or filler animal, fills the important role of second fiddle to the more flashy carnivores, making then fit as support for tiger, bear, leopard, elephant, basicly everything in its reign because its just so good.
I think you get my point.
Tdlr: Their arnt to many carnivorans, carnivorans are just so usefull and appealing, carnivorans alone can fill most roles (aboreal, nocturnal, aquatic, all biomes, centerpiece, filler, cute, cool, scary, etc), are great to bring diversity into dlcs, but are also heavily overused in animal packs, dholes are the best and i love them♡

I agree with Konig none of the choices I’ve hated and I’ve actually loved. I still want more mustelids in the game and maybe one more small cat and a maned Wolf or Bush dog, and a walrus. But the lack of rodents and birds is troubling and we could use some more reptiles like tortoises monitors or sea turtles. Marsupials need more representation and even though they are fairly represented, we still need more ungulates and primates to fill out more niches found in zoos.

 

[DarthQuell]

I somehow agree with your point, especially since zoos are unlikely to have many large carnivores in the same zoo.

Yeah. We don't want to have a modern day Jurassic Park on ours hands...


But, on the topic of this thread, I think the issue also is that with many of the players, they're not gonna see a black-breasted turtle deer (not real, ok?) and recognize it. They're gonna say "DEER. BORING.". Whereas they see something like a walrus or a wolverine and be like "Planet Zoo is cool."

So, from a marketing perspective, it's a good move. And I'm actually ok with it. Would I like more hoofed mammals? Yeah, totally. I want my white-tailed deer. Is it likely? Not sure, depends on how much the community asks. Will it sell? That's another question that we don't know the answer to. I mean, many, myself included, thought that the SEA pack would be a great seller, but at since the beginning it had a bunch of complaints for lack of building pieces (even though the previous 4 packs had them, not to mention the base game)

 

[KönigDerKaffeebohnen]

The thing is, that generally speaking most carnivorans serve more unique and diverse roles as hoofstock for example. Like look, i love more deer, but in the end their arnt that many deer niches. We have arctic deer, big deer, walkthrough deer allready in the game. Missing are Iconic majestic deer (red deer), small deer (roedeer or muskdeer),very small deer (both muntjak and pudu would work well) and the weirdo deer (pierre davids deer). While i wouldnt be opposed to for example a sika deer or an axis deer, i would activly dislike most of northamericas smaller deer species, as they are not held in zoos internatonally and dont bring much unique to the table. A white tailed deer for example is just generic and boring. No unique features, color, size, biome, anything.
Like they are still pretty and all, but they feel like the most generic deer, but without the international quality the old world species bring, as well as lacking unique qualitys most of them have. Axis is tropical, fallow deer borderline domestic, red deer is iconic and the stereotypical majestic deer and has a more unique color. The white tailed deer just exists, and it feels so weird to me. The thing most captivating about them is their large range, but still i dont feel like they bring something unique to the table.
Here side by side, who do you think is the more unique and impressive looking animal? Ofcourse this is subjective, but i must say its the red deer and i could keep going with most other deer species. It honestly frustrates myself how nothing the white tailed deer is, cause it just feels insane to me.

But before people misunderstand, im not against it cause its american. In fact, i would quite like to see the rosevelt elk for example, as they have a distinct look and are unique from other cervids. I think my Biggest problem with the wild tailed deer is, that it feels like its inclusion would be missed potential. If we are just talking about deer in general, their are far greater choices like the reddeer or the pierre davids deer, talking about just america the elk rules far supreme in pretty much every way.
Its allmost sad how nothing that animal feels and in return derailed not only my post, but also my argument about their being a limit to how many cervids we could put into the game without them loosing freshness, as the rosevelt elk, red deer, musk deer, piere davids deer and the muntjak could also easily coexist with the existing roster, all with their unique look and clear visual distinctions from one another. Damn, deer sure are interesting and beautiful

 

[DarthQuell]

I understand what you mean. It's the same thing with the coyote: they aren't that special, either. They may be cool to have, but really won't add anything unique to the game.

Part of the reason why I want the white-tail is because it's the only deer I've seen in the wild (well, I saw some that were red, many years ago. Not sure what species they were). I see white-tails every year, big bucks, tons of does and fawns. I mean, every time I see them I get excited.

But, I will admit that most other deer look far more interesting...














... I still want the white-tail

 

[arafan]

I think yes, the DLC were really carnivore-heavy, of the 38 new habitat animals we've got in DLC (I'm including the Europe pack), 17 were carnivores, 9 were ungulates (2 perisodactylans and 7 acrtiodactylans), 7 mammals from other orders (2 primates, 2 rodents, 1 xenarthran) and 5 arcosaurians (3 birds and 2 crocodiles). I would like if some other taxons would get more attention.

 

[Antimony96]

The only carnivores I feel are necessary at this point given community desire are a leopard, fossa, and maned wolf. Anything else is extra that, as suggested here, might come at the expense of underrepresented groups--especially birds.

 

[Aramar]

The only carnivores I feel are necessary at this point given community desire are a leopard, fossa, and maned wolf. Anything else is extra that, as suggested here, might come at the expense of underrepresented groups--especially birds.

The Tasmanian devil is necessary too in my opinion.

 

[arafan]

The Tasmanian devil is necessary too in my opinion.

But the Tasmanian devil isn't a carnivore (of course it eats meat), but a marsupial.