Do rivers still exist?

[Benjamin Kerman]

6 minutes ago, Loren Pechtel said:

The right answer is when cleaning things up the devs should have added a few alpine lakes and perhaps added some submerged islands that give extremely shallow water--you're landed if you're touching the surface under the water.

I totally agree! That sounds like a great idea! You should submit it to the suggestions!

[bewing]

All water is at 0 altitude by definition in the game. There is no way to create an alpine lake. The only possibility is to have the mountain and highland biomes extend down to sea level under some circumstances. Which is the way things used to be in the desert, and in the badlands, before the cleanup. AFAIK, there are still a few places in the ocean where there is land less than 20m below the surface, in a water biome. But you need something really tall to access it. The original KSP biome maps clearly show that the intent was for there to be meltwater biomes on the ice caps, and I think that is a very inventive, clever, and educational way to go about it. The game needs more of that sort of cleverness. Not less. More imagination. More inventiveness. More surprising twists that make you think. More things that many people would consider "glitches" if they don't go to the effort of imagining a reason why it might be real.

[Loren Pechtel]

31 minutes ago, bewing said:

All water is at 0 altitude by definition in the game. There is no way to create an alpine lake. The only possibility is to have the mountain and highland biomes extend down to sea level under some circumstances. Which is the way things used to be in the desert, and in the badlands, before the cleanup. AFAIK, there are still a few places in the ocean where there is land less than 20m below the surface, in a water biome. But you need something really tall to access it. The original KSP biome maps clearly show that the intent was for there to be meltwater biomes on the ice caps, and I think that is a very inventive, clever, and educational way to go about it. The game needs more of that sort of cleverness. Not less. More imagination. More inventiveness. More surprising twists that make you think. More things that many people would consider "glitches" if they don't go to the effort of imagining a reason why it might be real.

There still are lakes in the desert and badlands.  Given what you say about how water is calculated that would be a problem for highlands and mountains.  If they don't want to do something about it they should remove the biomes.

[bewing]

37 minutes ago, Loren Pechtel said:

There still are lakes in the desert and badlands.

The point was that mountains in the desert had special properties, up until ver 1.2.0. Mountains within the desert could be really short (250m tall) and could extend all the way down to sea level -- while still being mountain biomes. So if you found a mountain in the desert with a lake next to it, the mountain biome might extend all the way into the lake without any cheating. But it was only true in the deserts.

Similarly with highlands in the badlands. Highlands in the badlands could extend all the way down to sea level -- so you look for lakes in the badlands to find your splashy highlands.

Rules that are exceptions to the normal rules make things more interesting. Deleting things that seem like problems is not the answer. Applying extra cleverness and inventiveness is the answer.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

11 minutes ago, bewing said:

The point was that mountains in the desert had special properties, up until ver 1.2.0. Mountains within the desert could be really short (250m tall) and could extend all the way down to sea level -- while still being mountain biomes. So if you found a mountain in the desert with a lake next to it, the mountain biome might extend all the way into the lake without any cheating. But it was only true in the deserts.

Similarly with highlands in the badlands. Highlands in the badlands could extend all the way down to sea level -- so you look for lakes in the badlands to find your splashy highlands.

Rules that are exceptions to the normal rules make things more interesting. Deleting things that seem like problems is not the answer. Applying extra cleverness and inventiveness is the answer.

 

I'm saying either create the missing biomes or remove them from the list.  The status quo with a nonexistent biome and two others that only exist due to glitches is a bug in my book.

[Spricigo]

While the idéia of some weird biomes may be interesting,  splashing down to ground and grounding down to water it's just weird. 

Even if the "rare biomes"  make the game more interesting for some players,  they are clearly a glitch,  not intended. 

[Loren Pechtel]

30 minutes ago, Spricigo said:

While the idéia of some weird biomes may be interesting,  splashing down to ground and grounding down to water it's just weird. 

Even if the "rare biomes"  make the game more interesting for some players,  they are clearly a glitch,  not intended. 

I don't have a problem with the splashed down biomes--underwater in <x> is different than in air.  The landed at water is as you say nuts.  I do have a problem with it declaring biomes that don't exist, though.  Don't offer us the impossible.

(And in the realm of impossible I think the low over the sun science is impossible due to not surviving that close in.)

[Superfluous J]

4 hours ago, bewing said:

There used to be a lot more, until people told the devs it was a glitch, so the devs deleted it all.

What was being reported was Tundra within walking distance of the KSC, on the equator. Nothing educational about that.

[Spricigo]

 

8 minutes ago, Loren Pechtel said:

I don't have a problem with the splashed down biomes--underwater in <x> is different than in air.  The landed at water is as you say nuts.  I do have a problem with it declaring biomes that don't exist, though.  Don't offer us the impossible.

(And in the realm of impossible I think the low over the sun science is impossible due to not surviving that close in.)

Well,  to be honest,  I  have no problem with "rare biomes" .  It don't change my game at all. If it makes someone's game better,  good for him. 

I just think if the devs decide it is a nice feature they should do it properly.  Something like KSC biomes.  Call it reefs,  mangrove or whatever. 

On the other hand I know the "how much work" /"how much improves the game" ratio its pretty high

 

[bewing]

34 minutes ago, 5thHorseman said:

What was being reported was Tundra within walking distance of the KSC, on the equator. Nothing educational about that.

Actually, there was a lot of feedback about the water on the icecaps thing, too. Still is, as witnessed by this thread.

And I was asking the devs to simply change the name of "tundra" to "scrubgrass" to bypass all the people complaining about the Tundra. It was perfectly rational to have a zone of beachgrass between the shores and grasslands biomes. And that *would* have been educational.

(But no, they took the intellectually easy route and just deleted it ....)

Edited January 14, 2017 by bewing