They fixed the gameplay pace/time issue!

[HeatherG]

Since the Feedback forum is closing and you want to discuss the fact that time passes to fast then you can create one in the General Discussion. But the OP wishes their thread to stay on topic.

 

[Sclurp]

Hey all,

This is just showing that the report was investigated fully. It is not a confirmation of changes to gameplay mechanics.

And I oop!

 

[HeatherG]

and right after Paul also said

Hi everyone, we've just got some more information on this topic from dev! As you can imagine with Planet Zoo, animal lifespans and breeding play a critical role in many aspects of the simulation so it's something that we consider very carefully when addressing feedback. The issue has been marked as Fixed because for launch, the team have made a number of balancing tweaks and changes, specifically to animal lifespan and breeding, in an effort to address the Beta feedback.

Thank you for all of your constructive comments so far; we can't wait for Tuesday.

 

[MaximusSC]

There is an aspect you did not consider. Buffing an aspect of the game does indirectly nerf other aspects. In a fighting game, if you buff guns to do more damage, you’ve indirectly nerfed swords, without changing any of their stats. If you slow down breeding in PZ, you’re nerfing animals with small litters and indirectly buffing animals that have bigger litters. This applies to everything in one way or another.

I disagree. Buffing one thing doesn't 'indirectly nerf' anything. The swords, in your example, are still as potent as they were before the guns were buffed. The swords simply remained unchanged.

How would slowing down breeding on all animals be nerfing breeding of animals that have small litters and buffing animals that have larger litters? If all animals breeding rates are nerfed then ALL animals breeding rates were nerfed.

Now, I do understand what you are attempting to convey but I still disagree with you. What you are describing is merely an illusion. If one animals breeding rates is nerfed it has no direct nor indirect on another animals breeding rates if the one was untouched. The untouched animal would still breed at the same rate.

We do know that breeding has been changed/altered in some way. But we don't know how it was changed. We don't know if all animals were changed in some way or just one. Similar with lifespan of the animals. We don't know if the lifespan was lengthened or shortened. We don't know how many animals lifespan's were changed.

In regards to your quoted paragraph, there is nothing there that requires any reaction times that wouldn’t be realistically represented by a slower time speed. In fact, that reaction time would be hundreds of times slower than in the game’s slowest speed. Remember, in real life, time runs in REAL TIME. That is much, much slower than in-game time. Real life managers do not spend 24/7 making hasty time-intensive decisions that require impeccable reaction times. Your expectations are unrealistic.

Where did I state, or even imply, "managers spend 24/7 making hasty time-intensive decisions that require impeccable reaction times"? I made no such inference. But, with that said, managers do often have to make hasty and spur of the moment decisions. Sometimes they have to make many such decisions in a short period of time.

And as I explained, if problems are changed to happen less often, due to the concept of balance, that means those problems will be more costly ans difficult to resolve. Thus, the difficulty is kept, or maybe made even harder. This isn’t a quick reaction game.

Sorry, but that is illogical. If problems are changed to happen 'less often' then they simply occur 'less often'. Not more often. They don't magically become more difficult. Sure the difficulty of the problem remains the same because the only that was changed was how often the problems occur. Not the difficulty of the issue.

Apparently the game, the beta, was a 'quick decision' game for many as this entire thread (among others) is discussing that very thing. Many players felt overwhelmed because they had their zoos in situations where many things were occurring in short amounts of time.

In any case, even with the changes the dev's indicated they made there will still be times when players may be faced with several issues at or near the same time and they must make several quick decisions to resolve those issues. Those decisions will even include whether or not to hit the pause button. If players never had to make quick decisions then there wouldn't be much of a challenge.

And your compromise, to add an slow motion option, isn’t a compromise. It is an idea you had, but so far, every player that wanted slower time disagreed with it. That’s not compromise. Compromise would be changing your suggestion to something that the players who want slower time, and yourself, both agree with. But your solution wasn’t satisfying for us. So it does not count as compromise.

Sure my suggestions, all four of them, were me trying to come up with compromises. Just because you dislike my suggestions it doesn't mean they weren't compromises. They were assuredly more of a compromise than anything you offered.

 

[Charmmy Colour]

I hope they slow down it to at least 1 hour = 1 year. I will be really disappointed otherwise. I don’t know if I’m the only one feeling this way, but in the Beta the animals didn’t feel like creatures with personality, they didn’t feel alive after the first few seconds of admiring them. They turned fast in breeding machines that you barely care to even name, because they will die or send away for credits the next five minutes anyway. It was all so fast and lifeless, like I was managing a product of a factory, not caring for animals.

I guess I will adapt if they don’t change it, but it will impact negatively my enjoyment of the game and, considering most of the fan base have asked for a slow down, also will lower my faith in the company.

Still, I feel optimistic that they have fixed the speed. That would just make most of us happy.

 

[ctthomas]

Oh my. I'm not sure how this post got so negative?

I mostly play the sims. A few other games, but mostly sims. And I love it and love the developers, but the reality is they don't engage with the player base anything like how frontier has done. I'm amazed with how meticulously frontier has read and responded to every person's feedback. It really speaks to their commitment to their player base.

Time might have been slowed, might not, but there's no use getting our panties in a bunch over it. Let's just see what they did before we jump to conclusions on its effectiveness.

I for one am glad that they have the feedback some time and thought.

 

[HeatherG]

Please do not discuss each other. Posts had to be deleted. Please remain on the topic or this thread will have to be closed.

. As I stated earlier if you wish to talk about the wanted the time slowed down please open another thread in the General Discussion forum as the OP would like it to remain on their topic.

 

[LoneBlind]

Wow! What a volatile topic as always haha. I wouldn't say they've given us enough to make any serious assumptions besides "aspects of the game have changed" lifespan/breeding would be altered if they changed the timescale, or if they did it independently of the chronology of the game. We don't really know! If the game launches and everyone decides things are taking too long, they'll provide feedback and Frontier will likely release a patch for it as well. I don't think there's any need to get freaked out about it yet. I am excited to see exactly what they've done to address it on Wednesday though!

 

[Remira]

So you obviously have forgotten that part of the selling points of the game was that it was going to be/have challenges.

The selling point of the game is that you’re supposed to learn about the animals. That the animals have personalities and that they’re coded in such a way that their behaviour resembles close to real life. The personality aspect allows people to grow attached to the animals, even if they’re digital 1s and 0s.

Furthermore, how much time is anyone really going to spend or need watching these cartoon animals run through the same loops over and over and over again? How 'attached' to these animal loops is anyone really going to get? I'm just being realistic.

You would be surprised. And I’m also unpleasantly surprised at your approach to this. Different people will the animals for different reasons at different levels.

WHO wants to play the game on 'double fast forward'??????

Why do you care about playing the game on fast forward mode...

how much time is anyone really going to spend or need watching these cartoon animals run through the same loops over and over and over again?

if you won’t care about looking at the animals after, what sounds like, a short while?

The franchise mode is NOT, nor should it be made to be, the mode to 'enjoy the animals'! The franchise mode is, should be, the mode to deal with the challenging aspects of the game! PERIOD!

If you don’t want the franchise mode of a zoo management game to be about animals, then I don’t know what you were expecting. Maybe try Cities Skylines instead.

 

[Nova_8]

I don't get the problem, I spent a great deal of time watching the animals at the speed the beta was at. You all know you don't have to be building at all times right? You can just stop and watch for a bit. I've seen people ask for the years to be closer to planet coaster... If they stretch the time out that long it will take too long to achieve anything. Wanna get some lion cubs, well wait for another 10hrs of IRL game play, want them cubs to grow up so you can sell them, another 4hrs IRL. Bred a tortoise that you don't want, enjoy your next 50 hrs waiting for it to age.

 

[MaximusSC]

The selling point of the game is that you’re supposed to learn about the animals. That the animals have personalities and that they’re coded in such a way that their behaviour resembles close to real life. The personality aspect allows people to grow attached to the animals, even if they’re digital 1s and 0s.


You would be surprised. And I’m also unpleasantly surprised at your approach to this. Different people will the animals for different reasons at different levels.


Why do you care about playing the game on fast forward mode...

if you won’t care about looking at the animals after, what sounds like, a short while?


If you don’t want the franchise mode of a zoo management game to be about animals, then I don’t know what you were expecting. Maybe try Cities Skylines instead.

Clearly the creators of the game had a vision. They wanted to make the game an 'animal management game'. But, they wanted the game to be so much more than being a Giga Pet or a Tamagotchi. They wanted the game, including the animals themselves, to have much more depth than any other zoo or pet game before it. Examples of the vision for the game can be seen in the following quotes Piers Jackson, Planet Zoo Game Director:

“We just didn’t have time. So Planet Zoo is really the animal management game I’ve been wanting to make for 15 years, and being self-published means we can make the game we want.”

“Animal husbandry is core to any modern zoo, and some of these zoos are doing a fantastic job in that regard,” says Jackson. “We’ve spoken to zoo keepers as part of our research on this project, and they are there for the animals. They’re trying to repopulate the wild wherever they can. That’s something we very much wanted to reflect in Planet Zoo.”

"Attention to detail is almost an obsession at Frontier. Grounding things with a scientific background is what we do best, whether it’s mapping a galaxy or making the most authentic rollercoasters down to the nuts and bolts.

“Or in the case of Planet Zoo, making sure the zoo the animals are part of is representative of what a modern zoo stands for, and that conservation and husbandry are catered for properly.”

“A streak of authenticity runs through all our games at Frontier,” says Jonny Watts. “I’d love it if people were inspired by them to pursue a career in zoology or astronomy, the same way Life on Earth inspired me to study zoology. Our games are fun, but there’s always a message in there. Not an overt one. But enough to inspire people, I hope.”

The idea, Frontier says, is to make you really care for the creatures in your zoo, so you don’t just think of them as expendable exhibits.

“We want these animals to feel like they’re important to you, that you do need to look after them and care for them,” says Piers Jackson. “And we have seen these attachments grow. One team member followed one of his elephants through a full life cycle, and it was distressing when it died. That’s a really cool moment. A real bond. The work of the team, be it the character modellers, the animators, or the guys doing the AI, has come together to create something that people are really invested in.”

But if a management game is going to challenge the player, there needs to be moments where things go to hell. You don’t have to worry about guests being eaten by lions here, though. An escaped animal will cause a panic, but no blood will be shed, unlike Frontier’s other ‘zoo’ sim, Jurassic World Evolution. But there’s still plenty that can go wrong, forcing you to step in and deal with the crisis, spinning the appropriate plates.

“There’s the welfare of the animals, whether you’re building the right habitats and if they’re big enough,” says Piers Jackson. “You also have to be able to breed these animals effectively to increase their population.

“You have to provide enrichment for them to fight off boredom, give them the right food, research them, prevent them from getting diseases.

“In any simulation management game you have to allow people to do things badly. People have to be allowed to fail or push the simulation in a way that you didn’t intend. And there can be consequences to that. Creating a habitat that isn’t good for an animal will have a negative impact on its well being and the guests. But I think people will find ways of creating successful habitats that we haven’t thought of, and that’s part of the joy of making a customisable game like this.”

“Running a zoo is all about making sure the animals are well cared for, and that’s really the core of Planet Zoo,” says Jonny Watts. “You have to make sure the habitats have the correct biomes and temperatures. But there’s also a whole other area called enrichment. This means things you put into the habitat to stimulate the animals and break up their day, or recreate experiences they would have if they were in the wild. You’ll have emotional highs and lows. When an animal dies it also affects the economy. Money stops coming in, which is an important gameplay mechanic. It works on two levels, emotional and financial. If a ride breaks down in Planet Coaster you can send the engineers to fix it. But you can’t bring a dead animal back to life. That’s a beautiful bit of destruction and, from a pure gameplay perspective, a great ingredient for the simulation. And from that you get this emotional ebb and flow.”

I don't know how so many people can be so wrong yet believe they are so right? Astoundingly, Even when it's in black and white and right in front of them they refuse to see the evidence.

 

[Remira]

I guess I’ll add more to this before the thread gets closed for being off topic or something.

Clearly the creators of the game had a vision. They wanted to make the game an 'animal management game'. But, they wanted the game to be so much more than being a Giga Pet or a Tamagotchi. They wanted the game, including the animals themselves, to have much more depth than any other zoo or pet game before it. Examples of the vision for the game can be seen in the following quotes Piers Jackson, Planet Zoo Game Director:

You know, none of those quotes really support your point of “slowing down time makes the management part of the game less difficult” or your point of “the franchise mode shouldn’t be about animals.” If anything, some of the quotes literall prove your points, technically, wrong.
Also, the devs talking about players being allowed to experience mayhem and mistakes are most likely to do with gameplay mainly, looking at what the quotes are stating. I personally enjoy the challenge of monetary maintenance as well as the focus on the animals. Personally, I prefer to follow to life cycles of the animals in my zoo, so I prefer to spend a bit more time with each of them than what it was like in the beta.

I don't know how so many people can be so wrong yet believe they are so right? Astoundingly, Even when it's in black and white and right in front of them they refuse to see the evidence.

Well, in that case, right back at you.

And anyway, there isn’t a right or wrong time pace for this game. There are only preferences. And the majority prefer a slower pace, for a more personal experience with the animals.
And with this post, I end my involvement on this topic.

 

[MaximusSC]

I guess I’ll add more to this before the thread gets closed for being off topic or something. Not that the OP said anything about it (on this thread at least.)


You know, none of those quotes really support your point of “slowing down time makes the management part of the game less difficult” or your point of “the franchise mode shouldn’t be about animals.” If anything, some of the quotes literall prove your points, technically, wrong.
Also, the devs talking about players being allowed to experience mayhem and mistakes are most likely to do with gameplay mainly, looking at what the quotes are stating. I personally enjoy the challenge of monetary maintenance as well as the focus on the animals. Personally, I prefer to follow to life cycles of the animals in my zoo, so I prefer to spend a bit more time with each of them than what it was like in the beta.


Well, in that case, right back at you.

And anyway, there isn’t a right or wrong time pace for this game. There are only preferences. And the majority prefer a slower pace, for a more personal experience with the animals.
And with this post, I end my involvement on this topic.

The point of my previous post was to show that 'bonding with the animals' was NOT the only vision nor selling point of the game. But for some reason many seem to believe that the only selling point of the game is to 'bond with the animals'.

Since there were many points of vision and selling points for the game and among those visions and selling points was to "to allow people to do things badly" and "there needs to be moments where things go to hell" and "Animal husbandry [being] core", among other things, nerfing things (such as slowing down birth and deathrates) prelaunch will have the simulated effect of things becoming easier or less difficult. Why else would those things be nerfed if it weren't to make things less difficult? It certainly wouldn't make things more difficult.

 

[Paul_Crowther]

Final reminder to discuss the topic not each other.

 

[Crea_TivELA]

I think they done with it for the launch, but not complete. I think the pyramides show that very well... if they worked on it (fixed it) the colors in the pyramides show how sure they are, that the fixing stopped the issue. For the thread on the top you see that it's not fully colored yet - and I think thats because balancing this issue needs more time. I send you a screenshot of other topics which are fixed, so you can see the difference between the pyramides:

So I guess there probably will be more changes after launch when necessary - so yes I see problems with unrealisitic lifespans too and rather would have realistic lifespans and many more minutes for a passing year... but if they do it, it will take more time and new threads after testing the current fix on the issue after launch.

 

[Aiste]

Pyramides mean how many players voted for that issue. Not the fixing progress.

 

[Crea_TivELA]

Pyramides mean how many players voted for that issue. Not the fixing progress.

Is there a description to that anywhere? I didn't see it , but even then I'm sure Frontier wouldn't leave it by this fix, if people still have a issue with it in the outcome... they're famous to care about the community and if the pyramides show how many people voted for it, these people would post a thread again if they still run into their original problems Frontier tries to solve with the current fix.

Just one more night and we'll find out!

I'm just happy we'll have PlanZoo back tomorrow and we can "test" this and other things around it (which Frontier took care of too). Some things need time and I think this (MAYBE) can be one point of it.

 

[Zwomann]

This game is still way too fast. A day is a blink of an eye and I want to see baby animals traded and grow. This is ridiculous.

 

[Grayyy]

Agreed. The days go by way too fast

 

[Monsarona]

I feel like we have had 5 other threads arguing this same topic. If the Devs feel like the time speed needs to be changed they will change it. If they don't I am sure they have good reasons why, and they are not obligated to tell us those reasons.

At this point its all arguing in circles with no progress one way or the other.

They increased the lifespan of the animals, which seems like an okay compromise to me. After playing all day yesterday I didn't feel rushed at all and my animals were back to breeding at a good rate. Not too fast and not too slowly. Then again, I am not really focused on breeding at this point yet. I'm enjoying the game is it is currently (barring some occasionally crashing).

It took me about 4 in game months to build a medium sized habitat. IRL there was a grocery store being built near my house. It took them nearly 9 months to build. Seems like a good ratio to me.