Winter 2023 DLC Speculation

[Chuditch]

Many players have said that Oceania has been ignored and requested that relevant animals be added, which has been supported by many people. Why not Asia?

I think most players outside Australia and New Zealand feel that Oceania is very well represented now after the Oceania Pack, and rather than wishing for more representation for the region as a whole have switched to just requesting a few missing species like a tree kangaroo or echidna. Meanwhile for us Oceanian players of course the current count of just 13 habitat animals is way below what we see in our local zoos (here in Aus for example native species make up one to two thirds of the average zoo collection) and so some of will us will continue to campaign for more species for our region even if we are now in a minority.

Everyone's got different perspectives on what is necessary for the game based on their own experiences. I think most people would agree that there are still many important missing species for Asia though, even if they feel the continent as a whole is well represented. And if you feel that Asia is still underrepresented relative to what it has left to offer, you're free to push for that too.

 

[Milurian]

As for occupying 30% of the quota, isn’t this an intuitive reflection of species diversity and the commonness of zoos? I want to know a question about dingoes, Tasmanian devils, koalas, platypuses, wombats and kiwis. Apart from zoos in Australia and New Zealand, are these animals more common than Asian animals? If we use the number of animal species in each continent as a yardstick, I believe that the representation of animals in Oceania in the game is definitely higher than that in Asia. Many players have said that Oceania has been ignored and requested that relevant animals be added, which has been supported by many people. Why not Asia?

because on even with 2 packs dedicated to it still has under 20 animals thats why Oceania got more support.

Also I agree relying on percentages alone is not enough because some continents are more biodiverse than others im just pointing out the disparity because both south america and oceania have under 20 animals which is incredibly limiting to anyone building for these continents whereas if you building an asian or african zoo you have plenty of options across multiple different biomes and regions and even have the luxury of substitutes for some animals thats my problem every oceanic or south american zoo or section is going to look the same because we only have a handful of animals yes diversity in other continents is needed but when you can barley put together a viable section then there is a problem.

Also I Despise the its common argument everything in this game for me is uncommon my local zoo has less than 10 ungulates I have been to zoos which have 0% African or asian representation just because it is common in your part of the world does not mean its common everywhere the Eaza whilst a useful tool should not be used as the guide book for everything as that only looks at zoo keeping from a very Eurocentric point of view. Also everyone goes on and on about people wanting their local zoos represented I can get less than half mine in the game and every time another animal that is used in a zoo near me gets added everyone screams too much representation.

I think this is enough zoo talk for me for one day.

 

[Milurian]

OK，lets to back, a key issue is about invading species. Whether the people they brought were wrong or animals were wrong. This is very important, please do not force people's mistakes to animals.
Invasive species are a headache for every country. But the point is, it’s people, not animals, who make this mistake.

I agree I was more mad that the person who made a list of invasive animals and said lets talk about them only in the context of where they are invasive too adding another ungulate under the guise it can be found in australia. Also they are like the leading cause of mammalian extinctions in Australia so invasive species and control is a very important topic here.

 

[Cooper_yang]

I think most players outside Australia and New Zealand feel that Oceania is very well represented now after the Oceania Pack, and rather than wishing for more representation for the region as a whole have switched to just requesting a few missing species like a tree kangaroo or echidna. Meanwhile for us Oceanian players of course the current count of just 13 habitat animals is way below what we see in our local zoos (here in Aus for example native species make up one to two thirds of the average zoo collection) and so some of will us will continue to campaign for more species for our region even if we are now in a minority.

Everyone's got different perspectives on what is necessary for the game based on their own experiences. I think most people would agree that there are still many important missing species for Asia though, even if they feel the continent as a whole is well represented. And if you feel that Asia is still underrepresented relative to what it has left to offer, you're free to push for that too.

Yes, dude, my point is very clear, Oceania has been lacking representative species before, and I agree with that, so I am very happy to see a species like the Tasmanian devil appear in the game, of course, I welcome the arrival of the tree kangaroo and the echidna, just as I support the European bison and wild boar as the final pieces of the European animal puzzle. I just can't agree with the idea that Asian animals are already well represented.

 

[Moonfox]

Markhor - would be neat, but fills a similar niche to the takin, which I prefer, and I think it's highly likely that we get it anyway.
Blackbuck - rare in the AZA, mostly a thing of private safari parks, but it seems to be much more common in Europe so okay
Musk ox - does poorly in captivity outside of very cold areas and is being phased out for the most part for this reason
Yak - wild yak has the same captivity issues as the wild water buffalo, would rather just have a highland cow than a domestic yak

My second choice would be either the markhor or a muntjac or pudu, and there are also only like five carnivorans total that I actively want, so ideally most of what's left would be habitat birds and to a lesser extent monkeys, rodents, and large habitat reptiles.

Blackbuck are one of those exotic species that is actually pretty common here in Australia (ZAA)… where our import laws and weird decisions by zoos here to spend money on playgrounds rather than habitats means we have about 30 non-native species on display I’d love to have them in game!

Did I miss the page where we all got excited that outsource_lqa was updated?

 

[Chuditch]

Yes, dude, my point is very clear, Oceania has been lacking representative species before, and I agree with that, so I am very happy to see a species like the Tasmanian devil appear in the game, of course, I welcome the arrival of the tree kangaroo and the echidna, just as I support the European bison and wild boar as the final pieces of the European animal puzzle. I just can't agree with the idea that Asian animals are already well represented.

My point more was that, like you still think Asian animals are underrepresented, I still think Oceanian animals are underrepresented (the tree kangaroo and echidna are far from all that's missing), but others will disagree and that's ok. People saying that a region is well represented also doesn't mean that they don't think there's still aspects where it's noticeably lacking, like Asia is with ungulates, monkeys and birds, it just means that overall the amount of species we have is sufficient for building a detailed and largely realistic zoo section (which will differ depending on where you're from). I think we're at the stage of the game where South America is the only continent still seriously lacking in that regard, hence why it's the main one people avoid referring to as well represented now.

In the end everything is subjective and this kind of "who is less well represented" discussion that pops up on the forum constantly is kinda silly. Just want what you want and don't be bothered if people disagree.

 

[Milurian]

Yes, dude, my point is very clear, Oceania has been lacking representative species before, and I agree with that, so I am very happy to see a species like the Tasmanian devil appear in the game, of course, I welcome the arrival of the tree kangaroo and the echidna, just as I support the European bison and wild boar as the final pieces of the European animal puzzle. I just can't agree with the idea that Asian animals are already well represented.

I think what it comes down to is there are 2 types of representation there is quantity and quality and we are just focusing on different ones
quantity is the physical number of animals available to use for that region which asia definitely has enough and oceania does not.
quality is how well do the animals we have represent the whole region which oceania arguably has achieved but asia hasn't.
I am all for asia getting more diversity but there is a difference between struggling to even make a 15 animal zoo for a whole region and being upset that there are limited number of choices for a specific type or biome of animal both are issues but both are different in severity and extent.

I am by no means saying the animal selection for asia is perfect or complete its just you cannot compare the issues the rosters of oceania and south america can barely hold themselves up on their own with a roster under 20 habitat animals you have got one maybe 2 sections and that is if you use every available animal
whereas in asia you can have have multiple distinct regional sections and a reasonable number of animals in each and you can easily miss over a third of the animals and still have a reasonable zoo.

They do not have the same issue the diversity in asia can be fought for after we have enough animals in the other continents to make zoos that dont use the same 10 animals on repeat. In my opinion a healthy minimum numbers of animals is 25-30 for each continent irrelevant of what the diversity looks like and yes I mean europe too but most of those animals would be cross continent.

asia isnt well represented but its is alot closer than the other regions im sorry if this discussion got a bit heated.

 

[nutrit]

literally means nothing the files changed are I believe translation files so has no affect on the production of animals also it would be very bad practice to still be developing major animations less then a month before suspected release

anything but ungulates anything.

it makes speculating more fun because it makes us think of more wild packs and animal picks the only exception is when its the correct theme but almost non of the animals are correct then everyone is just salty

honestly both those options are better for the general public capuchin have much more of a presence in pop culture then other new world monkeys and proboscis monkey is a bit of a meme. Thats largely the biggest thing forum uses miss everyone here is arguing for the common zoo animals saying that we dont need things like the proboscis monkey but forget that the people playing the game dont care if its common they care if it is recognisable so the golden snub nosed monkey isnt that bad of a choice to the general public when compared to say another capuchin which people would find no different to the other one. This is a major fault of the meta wishlist since it only shows what we want a heavily biased sample of the player base who will likely get the packs no matter what im sure if they did a survey of all players the list would look very different and many of the top contenders wouldnt be there.

I have only seen the snubnosed monkey mentioned here as a lets hope they dont add this no one actucally wants it





I see no difference between them

everything on that list is invasive in australia ungulates are incredibly destructive to our native grasslands as the ground cannot support constant hooves. Almost everything on that list I hate with a passion because it has been drilled into my head that they are destroying everything and are pests. I wouldnt mind any of the deer making it into the game just not under the pretence that they are in australia

I choose neither.

Asia in my opinion has enough animals FOR NOW it represents around 30% of all ingame animals same with africa both regions still have whole lists of animals that they can add to make it more diverse but they can wait till we have the basics from the other 4 continents please

Also a point I dont see anywhere near enough people making about the asian vs european deer is that deer is one of the few thing iconic to europe which I think is why we got the red and fallow deer instead of a north american or asian deer its because europe is so limited with what can be added which isnt a bird too small or just a european subsect of something across the northern hemisphere.

The only thing that’s destructive to nature is human

 

[Narwhaler]

I think what it comes down to is there are 2 types of representation there is quantity and quality and we are just focusing on different ones
quantity is the physical number of animals available to use for that region which asia definitely has enough and oceania does not.
quality is how well do the animals we have represent the whole region which oceania arguably has achieved but asia hasn't.
I am all for asia getting more diversity but there is a difference between struggling to even make a 15 animal zoo for a whole region and being upset that there are limited number of choices for a specific type or biome of animal both are issues but both are different in severity and extent.

I am by no means saying the animal selection for asia is perfect or complete its just you cannot compare the issues the rosters of oceania and south america can barely hold themselves up on their own with a roster under 20 habitat animals you have got one maybe 2 sections and that is if you use every available animal
whereas in asia you can have have multiple distinct regional sections and a reasonable number of animals in each and you can easily miss over a third of the animals and still have a reasonable zoo.

They do not have the same issue the diversity in asia can be fought for after we have enough animals in the other continents to make zoos that dont use the same 10 animals on repeat. In my opinion a healthy minimum numbers of animals is 25-30 for each continent irrelevant of what the diversity looks like and yes I mean europe too but most of those animals would be cross continent.

asia isnt well represented but its is alot closer than the other regions im sorry if this discussion got a bit heated.

You mean central asia right, because southeast asia is by far the most well represented region in the game.

 

[Chuditch]

The only thing that’s destructive to nature is human

I’m sure the thousands of species threatened by invasive species around the world would disagree with you there. Yes it’s not their fault that they’re there and it’s wrong to hate them for it, but they’re still immensely destructive to the ecosystems they have found themselves in.

 

[Marvinb]

I’m sure the thousands of species threatened by invasive species around the world would disagree with you there. Yes it’s not their fault that they’re there and it’s wrong to hate them for it, but they’re still immensely destructive to the ecosystems they have found themselves in.

But the vast majority of invasive species are just an extention of humans

 

[Narwhaler]

I’m sure the thousands of species threatened by invasive species around the world would disagree with you there. Yes it’s not their fault that they’re there and it’s wrong to hate them for it, but they’re still immensely destructive to the ecosystems they have found themselves in.

Invasive species are a human caused issue so I think the point stands.

 

[Chuditch]

Invasive species are a human caused issue so I think the point stands.

Of course, but to me responding to someone saying that invasive hoofstock don’t belong in Australia with “only humans are destructive to nature” feels dismissive of the issue at hand. These animals are destructive, even if humans are responsible for them being there.

 

[Cooper_yang]

Regarding invasive species, my point is simple and clear:
1. The fault lies with humans, not animals.
2. The harm caused by invasive species to native species is an objective fact. There is no doubt about this (just like I saw tilapia and snapping turtles in rivers and lakes in China. The super vitality and destructive power of these two creatures bring great harm to native species. The disaster caused by this species is visible to the naked eye).
3. In order to protect native species, we must artificially control the number of invasive species. They are just following their nature that has evolved over millions of years. There is nothing wrong with this. But there is no doubt that the mistakes caused by humans must also be made up for by humans.
To sum up: The fault of invasive species lies fundamentally with humans. Hatred of invasive animals itself is actually a bit redundant. To correct this kind of mistake must be done by humans, and we cannot rely on nature to solve it. (Every wrong has its owner, every debt has its owner, whoever makes a mistake is responsible)

 

[zoomaster1994]

I'd love yaks, would be another domestic and one step closer to making a Children's zoo lol.

Since ungulates are the discussion, what is your most wanted ungulate species per continent?

Europe: Wild Boar
North America: Musk Ox
Asia: Reeves's Muntjac or Blackbuck
Africa: Aoudad, Dik-Dik, Impala, or Grevy's Zebra
South America: Guanaco or Vicuna

Both Americas would have been different last week, thanks again for the peccary lol.

Europe: Wild Boar, Wisent, Musk ox
North America: Musk Ox, white tailed deer, wapiti
Asia: Blackbuck, Markhor, Siberian musk deer, Reeves muntjac, Saiga, Golden takin, Tibetan yak(it has grown on me ) banteng, gaur, lowland anoa, Chital, Sumatran rhino, visayan spotted deer
Africa: Aoudad, Dik-Dik, greater kudu, eland, bontebok
South America: Guanaco, mountain tapir, marsh deer

 

[Cooper_yang]

Of course, but to me responding to someone saying that invasive hoofstock don’t belong in Australia with “only humans are destructive to nature” feels dismissive of the issue at hand. These animals are destructive, even if humans are responsible for them being there.

dude，No one denies the harm caused by invasive species. I think some people just want to express that the root cause of this mistake lies with humans, not animals. Animals just follow their own nature, just like tigers must eat meat. Unfortunately, this nature has caused harm to native species and the ecological environment, and we must control the number of invasive species in order to protect native species.

 

[Marvinb]

I'd love yaks, would be another domestic and one step closer to making a Children's zoo lol.

Since ungulates are the discussion, what is your most wanted ungulate species per continent?

Europe: Wild Boar
North America: Musk Ox
Asia: Reeves's Muntjac or Blackbuck
Africa: Aoudad, Dik-Dik, Impala, or Grevy's Zebra
South America: Guanaco or Vicuna

Both Americas would have been different last week, thanks again for the peccary lol.

Europe: Wild boar
North America: Musk ox
Asia: Nilgai
Africa: Kirk dik dik or duiker, essentially a small antilope
South America: Southern pudu
Oceania: Kune kune pig

 

[nutrit]

I’m sure the thousands of species threatened by invasive species around the world would disagree with you there. Yes it’s not their fault that they’re there and it’s wrong to hate them for it, but they’re still immensely destructive to the ecosystems they have found themselves in.

You can say the same for humans who put them there in the first place.

 

[Chuditch]

dude，No one denies the harm caused by invasive species. I think some people just want to express that the root cause of this mistake lies with humans, not animals. Animals just follow their own nature, just like tigers must eat meat. Unfortunately, this nature has caused harm to native species and the ecological environment, and we must control the number of invasive species in order to protect native species.

Saying that only humans are destructive is about as close as you can get to saying that invasive species aren’t destructive without outright stating it. My opinions on invasive species are pretty much exactly the same as yours (very well said by the way), we shouldn’t hate these animals and it’s not their fault, but we also shouldn’t skirt around the issue like that.

You can say the same for humans who put them there in the first place.

And I do.

 

[Tinou97]

I think most players outside Australia and New Zealand feel that Oceania is very well represented now after the Oceania Pack, and rather than wishing for more representation for the region as a whole have switched to just requesting a few missing species like a tree kangaroo or echidna. Meanwhile for us Oceanian players of course the current count of just 13 habitat animals is way below what we see in our local zoos (here in Aus for example native species make up one to two thirds of the average zoo collection) and so some of will us will continue to campaign for more species for our region even if we are now in a minority.

Everyone's got different perspectives on what is necessary for the game based on their own experiences. I think most people would agree that there are still many important missing species for Asia though, even if they feel the continent as a whole is well represented. And if you feel that Asia is still underrepresented relative to what it has left to offer, you're free to push for that too.

I can totally understand your point and you of course have the right to express it. This being said, I think most of the players here just want a fair representation of each continent/ragion based on their size and their biodiversity. And of course one day the game will come to an end so it's fair to root for regions which have been neglected recently.

At this point, I agree with a lot of people here. The 3 regions I'm expecting to have more animals for are South America, Asia (India/Western China) and Arctic. I know biodiversity in arctic is very low but we do need more than 5-6 animals and some of the most requested animals correspond to this region.