The sloth could/should have been an habitat animal
- Thread starter tigris115
- Start date
I'm saying it loudly and everywhere - I don't want another exhibit mammal. Technically and mechanically speaking I'm fine with the Sloth being an exhibit animal. I forgot about the absolute dearth of offerings from the exhibit market that stem from having a highly requested animal with all of the exhibit market's limitations. Until/if the adjust that, I'll change my tune, but right now I'm even thinking about nightmare with exhibit birds.
I can't even imagine the nightmare trying to secure a bird if a sloth is proving to be a challenge
Im defintely not completely against exhibit mammals. Something like mole rats or sugar gliders would be cool imo
that’s be soooooo much better than it is now, with its absurd space requirements.
Tbh i just want babies and the hability to remove some of those huge structures in their exhibit. They should be easier to hide at least. Other than that i'm ok with the sloth as it is.I really love the sloth just as it is now but I must admit I really miss the babies
Considering how common a problem that it is, it's a very dumb thing to complain about...
If we could get non-walkthrough exhibits that could allow landscaping and water boundaries, I would love to get the smaller crocodilians in its own box
No need to be rude.
In any case, whilst the space requirements for some other species (especially crocs) are too big, those for dwarf caiman (and the platypus) are absurdly big - the issue is orders of magnitude worse for them than other species.
Last edited:
I'm up for a hybrid system with some smaller reptiles being in WEs as well as habitat and some larger exhibits in habitats
I don't see the difference... in the end, the problem is about how Frontier programmed them, which is something that can be changed for habitat animals, but not exhibit animals, which in many cases share the same problem; tiny insects in huge boxes make no sense either, but there's nothing that can be done about them.
Why? What possible advantage comes from putting habitat animals into boxes? Why not just modify the demands of the habitat animals to make more sense? Or maybe just stop whining about how some things don't make sense, when a lot of things in this game don't make sense.
First of all, me? Whining? That's the one thing I don't do around here: I don't complain when things don't go my way. I just deal with it. Unless other forum members prove me wrong(?)
All this is as a suggestion for those who want some animals as habitat species, that's all
I agree that we should never take something out of a system it is already in. Then having both options is better.
The thing with having caimans and such in exhibits is that your options for adding to the design of it is going to be either small and/or annoying.
With flying and climbing animals it is not a problem to place a rock or plant on the ground, since the animals will never be there. So even though the exhibits got their limitations, you don't end up feeling like it is the same display you put up everytime.
But as soon as an animal need loops on the ground, you can't put anything there without having it clipping through it. So either you have to live with however Frontier designed it (probably not realistic) or a completely empty space. Unless you want to sit down and figure every loop out, so you know where you can place a plant.
So while it might be smaller, I don't imagine the design of it is going to look more realistic. So what is the point?
No. Because many of us prefer the sloth in the Walkthrough Exhibit. If they gave us the two-toed sloth, which is preferred, in a habitat, I'd just be annoyed, because suddenly I have the sloth I want, but now I'm being forced to endure it crawling along the ground while I attempt to make a suitably small habitat for it.
That should be obvious - some people would prefer them that way, and nobody has to explain themselves to you.
First, I didn’t say that them being exhibits would be better than them being habitat - I said it would be better than the situation as it currently is.
Second, the difference between 2-3 times a reasonable space requirement (lots of species) and 50+ times a reasonable space requirement (e.g., platypus) is substantial.
Third, I didn’t say that the space for current exhibit animals wasn’t too big - it is, and a smaller exhibit should, absolutely, be introduced.
Fourth, for platypus and dwarf caiman the habitat system makes it impossible to reduce the area sufficiently since, in both cases, the total required land area would, realistically, be less than the space needed for keepers to enter habitats.
Last edited:
I wouldn't personally use it, but the size would be far more realistic than what the habitats can offer. Therefore, if somebody is after realism, then the WEs should be the perfect size for a small-ish animals like the dwarf croc and the monitors.
The hitboxes prevent anything smaller
But what does a realistic size help, if you can't design it realistically because of it?