Would you trade out the burnt forest or whatever biome for a new biome

Adam the Waster

Adam the Waster

Hunter
Sense we are limited to only 5 biomes and a few ground types do to limitations it got me thinking

"Would i change X biome to Y"

Personally I would change the Burnt forest to a more Natrual biome like a Grasslands, plains or a Chaparral (basicly a desert like grassland with small scrubs and trees)

There would be pros and cons of losing it but then I would do the original plan of combining the wasteland and burnt forest together.

But what do yall think?
 
In my opinion, no. I think that with the current game, they could add sub-biomes without having to change the graphics engine or whatever else limits the biomes—just by adding more plants and trees that only appear in specific sub-biomes, like dense jungle, similar to the “Better Biomes” mod but better. They could also include specific animals, like more snakes and bees in tree stumps—maybe even a caiman? Or the possibility of contracting a disease from the greenish stagnant water, more humidity in the environment, etc.
 
The Biomes, outside of the forest, need work. More localized assets from rock formations, trees, flowers, bushes, etc.
 
I think the burnt biome should be a ring around the wasteland biome to imply the wasteland biome is bombed out. It's really the least interesting biome in the game. The burnt zombies are super easy to kill. There isn't much going for it. If there was more fire hazards I would find it more intersting
 
I haven't spent enough time in it to say. In fact, I've reluctantly avoided it like the plague, stopping in only to say, "Hi," to Jen (since she can no longer appear anywhere else) and put paid to that initial tier of odd jobs. I couldn't really tell you why other than that the atmosphere is so oppressive, I just don't want to spend any time in it. Is it the lighting? Is it the featurelessness of the landscape? I'm honestly going to have think about that. I know it was cut at one point and brought back for some reason, but that's pretty much all I know about it.
 
Burnt forest is a fantastic biome to visit after completing the forest quests. Nothing fills me with dread more than the knowledge that fiery ferals are wandering about in a place i'm about to spend the next 5 days in. Its such a massive difficulty spike for that stage of the game i love it. Couple that with the fact its the first biome storms start to appear in and you start to think:

"Ah, this is where the DIE part of 7 days to die starts."
 
I wouldn't mind seeing Burnt Forest being a subbiome of the Forest, but I can't really think of another biome that's worth replacing it. I don't think Grasslands is compelling. I could see a mountain range, but that's probably not conducive to POIs.
 
I would switch out the burnt biome for the plains or a shrubland. Maybe integrate the burnt biome into the pine forest, introduce small patches here and there.
 
Old Crow said:
Would love to see a swamp sub-biome.
Click to expand...
A swamp would be unlikely since there aren't any in Arizona, but a similar biome would be wetlands. If they added another biome, either replacing one or adding an additional biome, wetlands would be what I'd choose.

Everyone keeps pining after the plains biome, but I don't really understand the interest in it. It's basically the forest with fewer (or no) trees. Nothing special about it. Wetlands is at least noticeably different from other biomes we have. Besides, plains could just be a sub-biome of forest... one with fewer (or no) trees, which can already be accomplished easily.

As far as the burnt biome itself, I actually like it. However, it is definitely too similar in looks to the wasteland. It doesn't feel different enough because of that. And that's what I think you'd have with the plains as well... too similar to the forest.
 
I wonder if the burnt biome could be made more viable, interesting, dangerous if you had more fire related dangers/hazards present.

Maybe even the chance to find some rare resource only found in that biome. In my current playthroughs I usually skip right over the burnt biome and go to desert/snow then wasteland.

If coal could only be found there or found there in abundance while being scarce in other biomes, I think I'd be more interested in spending time there.
 
Lax said:
I wonder if the burnt biome could be made more viable, interesting, dangerous if you had more fire related dangers/hazards present.

Maybe even the chance to find some rare resource only found in that biome. In my current playthroughs I usually skip right over the burnt biome and go to desert/snow then wasteland.

If coal could only be found there or found there in abundance while being scarce in other biomes, I think I'd be more interested in spending time there.
Click to expand...
They chose coal in the snowy forest instead for some reason. They could adjust it to make something more common there, but that won't really change people's opinions about it. And if you made something only available there, you're more likely to upset people more than the minor dislike of the biome that we have now... forcing someone to go to a biome they don't like isn't a good way to make them like the biome.

I think the main reasons people tend to skip over the burnt forest is that they just don't like the aesthetics of it and that the game stage bonus is so minor that it doesn't really feel like any step up compared to the pine forest. By jumping to the desert or higher, there is a bit more noticeable increase to the game stage and the loot. Many people prefer to rush through a game, so taking small steps isn't often what they want to do.

Changing the biome to be more distinct and interesting can get people to at least find it worth looking at in the game even if they don't necessarily stay there. Making the biome aesthetically pleasing so people would want to build their base there would improve things even more. Right now, I believe most people build their base (at the least their crafting base, if not their horde base) in the forest because of how it looks. After that, it's probably the snowy forest, then the desert, then the wasteland, then the burnt forest. And wasteland is probably only higher (if it is) than the burnt forest because if you're going to build in a depressing biome, you might as well do so in one that has good loot. That's of course just my estimation on which biomes are used most for crafting bases and may be entirely incorrect.
 
warmer said:
I think the burnt biome should be a ring around the wasteland biome to imply the wasteland biome is bombed out. It's really the least interesting biome in the game. The burnt zombies are super easy to kill. There isn't much going for it. If there was more fire hazards I would find it more intersting
Click to expand...
That makes sense and also for being the second biome if we are talking about hazards it's a massive jump to go from fire smoke and other toxic things in the air and ember storms then you got desert
Post automatically merged:

If it would be possible I would have all biomes but sense we are limited to 5 thats why.

I would love the plains and maple forest and maybe a new biomes with more wildlife
 
Adam the Waster said:
If it would be possible I would have all biomes but sense we are limited to 5 thats why.

I would love the plains and maple forest and maybe a new biomes with more wildlife
Click to expand...
What I wish we had were better defined and varied sub biomes. There are a lot of ways to create sub biomes that spawn with unique types of decoration/prop distribution.

I can't remember when this stopped, but I remember that burnt forest would spawn as patches or a swath of green forest. That felt really cool and made a lot of RPG sense. I remember running through a green forest and finding a swath of burnt forest and a burnt house POI and some burnt zombies inside. It felt really coherent and told a story without a single word.

Now the isolation of each biome is a story/progression gate decision.

Until there is a defined story implemented, the progression system is just feels articifically restrictive

I'd like to see the forest return to being called Plains and the sub biomes of different forest/tree types/burnt forest patches. The Forest biome right now just feels like a lot of the same. It essentially looks the same in every direction. Burnt forest is even worse. Just empty and nothing on fire. IT'S the burnt forest biome?! We can do better than a pile of coals.
 
It's already been mentioned before but yes the biomes could use some more sub-biomes. Each biome could randomly spawn in sub-biomes (even if they have to be coded as essentially ground POIs). So you can get your plains back, meadows, etc. You could also have some tangible benefits for these things such as a rare mineral deposit cluster, an area with more beehives and rare flowers, etc. This doesn't have to even be limited to natural concepts. A destroyed military convoy that has singed the terrain black in the forest with some good loot, a downed helicopter with some supply drops nearby, etc. Anything, please for the love of everything TFP give people a reason to explore the map.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top