Proposal: Player-Centered Biome Modification

[agentlemanloser]

Note: I genuinely don't know if this feature is already implemented. I have seen nothing suggesting that it is. If so, delete. Also, I do not know if this has been suggested. If so, consider this one more vote.

Proposal 1: As players deforest or otherwise modify biomes, the biomes should change to reflect the new conditions. For instance, an autumnal woodland should no longer remain an autumnal woodland if the Maple and other trees have all been cut. Rather, such a deforested woodland should slowly downgrade to a grassland. It makes no sense for mushrooms and singing logs to spawn in areas that no longer bear any of the salient features of a woodland, save the terrain texture itself. Moreover, players should be able to slowly create biomes through the planting of trees (and later, perhaps, berry bushes and other defining terrain features). This process should be very slow, obviously, taking weeks or months for real changes to be seen. It should also take place on large scales - it would be silly to have a biome no larger than a tenth of a tile. I feel this is an absolutely necessary feature that the developers must implement in the future, since this will give players an even greater sense of immersion in an evolving world. Imagine "erosion" (purely mathematical, of course) causing the spread of vast badlands due to player mismanagement? I could see ecology gangs forming to enforce proper environmental stewardship (or similar gangs forming to ruin the environments of neighbors).

Proposal 2: As a corollary to the above, I also wish to propose that the Darkness also function in a similarly evolving fashion. In short, the Darkness should eventually "push back" against the light of civilization, slowly creeping towards Boston along with the future hostile inhabitants, plant types, etc. Obviously, this should not be done until the church mechanics are firmly in place, so this would clearly be a late-beta change. I consider this proposal as vital as the one regarding biome change, simply because immersion requires a vital, living world, and slowly evolving biomes and fluctuating borders between civilization and wilderness are crucial to sensible worldbuilding strategy. Now, I strongly suspect that a Darkness that pushes back against the Light of Civilization is, in fact, the developers ultimate ambition, as it would be a wonderful innovation, but regardless I want to state its importance nevertheless.

Kindly post your thoughts here; I am attempting to make informed and intelligent suggestions, and I feel that the more debated an idea is the more likely it is to be considered.

[pistolshrimp]

I would love to see this in the game right along with capped animal numbers, so an overkill would reduce numbers for a long time making protecting your sources of hides and meat important.

Perhaps here is where tree purity might actually matter. Like the more pure the tree is the more likely it is to change the ground beneath it, and say a small area around it to the corresponding biome type. Taken to its logical extremes you could have towns that have small sections of all the different biomes, spawning their corresponding foragables,within their claim.