There were updates to the biome system that I was not informed about and would have strongly objected to if I was more aware, and Mni has failed to respond or make fixes, so I'm gonna put it out here what rules are broken and why, and what you should or should not do instead.
treeline rule
The main issue here is black and glass flora magically being immune to permafrost. I don't know if Mni didn't know that permafrost is the actual reason plants can't get big in this biome or what, but black and glass flora would not, in fact, be immune to it and would have the same size restrictions as all other flora. Please do not submit black and glass flora over 1 meter in height to these biomes; while they are technically allowed by the letter of the rule, magic powers aren't technically disallowed either and that doesn't mean they should be approved.
This rule being broken also breaks the new frostwood biome. I suggest treating it similarly to the cactaiga biome from Serina--a very, very dense shrubland populated by short, hardy, cold-adapted plants. That is the closest thing there is to a real-world analogue.
Also of note: The tundra (which is inexplicably subpolar when it is very much a polar right-up-against-the-glaciers biome in real life) and alpine tundra are inexplicably excluded from the treeline rule now, even though they are literally what the treeline is named for in real life, and for some reason montane desert species have been added to some of the southern tundras. I suggest treating the treeline rule as though it includes them as well, because it is implausible for large flora to thrive there as now implied by the rules. I will be personally looking into doing something to kill off all the warm desert species and inexplicable trees in the tundras and other polar biomes if Mnidjm doesn't remove them as I have requested.
new mangal biomes
The new mangal biomes have made a complete mess of coastal ecosystems and any attempt to make semi-aquatic organisms. Among other things, it has made seafaring shrews impossible without wildcard...and most other semi-aquatic organisms that cross the ocean such as analogues to seals, sea turtles, seabirds, coconuts, and countless others. This is because an impossible amount of coastline has mangrove forests blocking the beach, and inexplicably have both beaches and mangrove swamps in the same place when that does not happen in real life.
I don't have any recommendation for handling these as a user. Instead, I would just like to demand that they be vastly reduced on the current map, some of them be removed outright, and preferably be made to replace beaches where they do occur. Mangrove-forming trees should still be present in non-mangal coasts where they evolved to inhabit, because they should be able to exist in small clusters there the same way you see trees in the plains and shrublands.
EDIT: Also, mangals should be part of the wetland flavor, as they are literally the same biome as the pre-existing coastal wetlands but everywhere for some reason. As in, the coastal wetlands have been treated as mangals the whole time, meaning we already had mangals the whole time.
EDIT 2: Apparently mangals are defined as a completely different biome and nobody told me nor was it ever stated publicly anywhere?
a minor note on migration
The addition of new temperature types and the maximum number per submission being increased to 3 means that most plausible migratory species no longer require an exception to the wildcard rule. Therefore, the unofficial "migratory exception" clause should now be ignored.
treeline rule
| QUOTE |
| - Barring Black and Glass flora, no macro flora large than 1 meter will be allowed in the terrestrial polar biome type. The biomes that this applies to are; Polar Beach, Polar River, Polar Lake, Polar Riparian, Moor, Polar Palus, Frostwood, Polar Scrub, Mamut, Barrens |
The main issue here is black and glass flora magically being immune to permafrost. I don't know if Mni didn't know that permafrost is the actual reason plants can't get big in this biome or what, but black and glass flora would not, in fact, be immune to it and would have the same size restrictions as all other flora. Please do not submit black and glass flora over 1 meter in height to these biomes; while they are technically allowed by the letter of the rule, magic powers aren't technically disallowed either and that doesn't mean they should be approved.
This rule being broken also breaks the new frostwood biome. I suggest treating it similarly to the cactaiga biome from Serina--a very, very dense shrubland populated by short, hardy, cold-adapted plants. That is the closest thing there is to a real-world analogue.
Also of note: The tundra (which is inexplicably subpolar when it is very much a polar right-up-against-the-glaciers biome in real life) and alpine tundra are inexplicably excluded from the treeline rule now, even though they are literally what the treeline is named for in real life, and for some reason montane desert species have been added to some of the southern tundras. I suggest treating the treeline rule as though it includes them as well, because it is implausible for large flora to thrive there as now implied by the rules. I will be personally looking into doing something to kill off all the warm desert species and inexplicable trees in the tundras and other polar biomes if Mnidjm doesn't remove them as I have requested.
new mangal biomes
The new mangal biomes have made a complete mess of coastal ecosystems and any attempt to make semi-aquatic organisms. Among other things, it has made seafaring shrews impossible without wildcard...and most other semi-aquatic organisms that cross the ocean such as analogues to seals, sea turtles, seabirds, coconuts, and countless others. This is because an impossible amount of coastline has mangrove forests blocking the beach, and inexplicably have both beaches and mangrove swamps in the same place when that does not happen in real life.
I don't have any recommendation for handling these as a user. Instead, I would just like to demand that they be vastly reduced on the current map, some of them be removed outright, and preferably be made to replace beaches where they do occur. Mangrove-forming trees should still be present in non-mangal coasts where they evolved to inhabit, because they should be able to exist in small clusters there the same way you see trees in the plains and shrublands.
EDIT: Also, mangals should be part of the wetland flavor, as they are literally the same biome as the pre-existing coastal wetlands but everywhere for some reason. As in, the coastal wetlands have been treated as mangals the whole time, meaning we already had mangals the whole time.
EDIT 2: Apparently mangals are defined as a completely different biome and nobody told me nor was it ever stated publicly anywhere?
a minor note on migration
The addition of new temperature types and the maximum number per submission being increased to 3 means that most plausible migratory species no longer require an exception to the wildcard rule. Therefore, the unofficial "migratory exception" clause should now be ignored.
I think at this point mangals have been agreed to be ccomparable to river biomes that bisect a given biome in function, in that they are represented on map as a bold line distinct from surrounding biomes, but do not obstruct passage despite being a defining border line between two distinct biomes.
Though I do think they ought to be approached in more differently in how they are applied to the map, more restricted, I think this understanding of the set up should work to solve issue.
Though I do think they ought to be approached in more differently in how they are applied to the map, more restricted, I think this understanding of the set up should work to solve issue.
View Desktop Version | Disable Images in Posts
Powered by Invision Power Board (Jcink) © 2023 IPS, Inc.
Powered by Invision Power Board (Jcink) © 2023 IPS, Inc.