Why no Seaweed?

Posts: 2
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 11:46 am

Re: Why no Seaweed?

Post by Ash » Fri May 24, 2013 12:11 pm

I do feel there's a lot more potential from the ocean, similar to how the mountains are now: a simplified biome but with its own unique sources, and that can fit in well with any village type. I can see how it might be hard to fit into the existing categories though; as stated oceanic flora is pretty non-distinctive.

Posts: 10
Joined: Thu May 23, 2013 12:50 pm

Re: Why no Seaweed?

Post by Modest » Fri May 24, 2013 12:35 pm

I also think that it would be great to see some plants in see. Even if it would be just three or four, it would make oceans more interesting.

Posts: 53
Joined: Fri May 24, 2013 12:38 am

Re: Why no Seaweed?

Post by ollj » Fri May 24, 2013 7:18 pm

i think ocean and mountain are made the low-density borders of the possible aspect-developement-space.

Cities cant be placed on them.
There are no plants or very few plants and animals on both of them that cant develope as much.

Posts: 6
Joined: Mon May 27, 2013 7:45 pm

Re: Why no Seaweed?

Post by MidrealmDM » Mon May 27, 2013 8:00 pm

Forest or Swamp giant can place PLANKTON on the ocean

PLANKTON - Plant, Natura 1, Food 0, Tech 0
Ability = counts as both Animal (fish) and Plant for other symbiosis effects.

PLANKTON + Leaf Aspect = ALGAE

ALGAE - Plant, Natura 1, Food 0, Tech 3
Symbiosis = Gains +2 Natura and + 5 Tech if adjacent to Stone

ALGAE + Growth Aspect = KELP BED

KELP BED - Plant, Natura 3, Food 3, Tech 5
Symbiosis = Gains +5 Tech for each KELP BED or ALGAE adjacent
(The exact numbers need some tweaking, but the concept is there.)

Plankton would appear as a semi-transparent cloudy swarm in the water
Algae would float on the surface
Kelp Bed would anchor on the bottom and extend upward in a forest like structure.

Animation Layers should place Kelp behind fish so as not to obscure view
Plankton can appear in front to make it appear as the fish is swimming through the could of plankton

Posts: 9
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 7:48 am

Re: Why no Seaweed?

Post by Baldri » Tue May 28, 2013 8:57 pm

Sounds great. Maybe you could even add mines. Maybe sunken ruins that becomes mangan.

I feel that waterworlds are pretty much a nowbrainer ambassadorwise:

Watergiant: Domestic Animals Level 3? Check! Herd Aspect Level 3? Check! Aurorabeam? Check! Monsoon Level 3? Doublecheck!

Forestgiant: Huntingaspect Level 3? Check! Fertility Boost Level 3? Check!

And so on. You even got Earthquake and Muckbomb Level 3 besides Exotic animals and Exotic Aspect.

Posts: 2
Joined: Tue May 28, 2013 7:17 pm

Re: Why no Seaweed?

Post by veag » Tue May 28, 2013 9:47 pm

I think the lack of variety in the oceans is the big problem with them. Yes, the symbiosis on the mackerel is overpowered, but I think that is only part of a larger problem. At the moment there are only a few options for filling your oceans, and they are just better or worse ways of doing the same thing. Nerfing mackerel will help, but it is not really a solution. There are very few things to put into the oceans, all of them are fish, and some combinations of them will always be just better than others.

Variety and complexity don't always give you depth in a game, but I in this case when you compare the ocean to the land, the lack of variety stands out enough to bother people.

Even just something simple like making the existing piece of driftwood work like an ocean version of the withered shrub would at least give players one more good option for very little extra design work.

Posts: 5
Joined: Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:44 am

Plants for the ocean.

Post by Feneris » Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:51 am

I've always found it limiting that for ocean tiles you could only have animals, while I can understand why you might not want minerals. The oceans are teaming with plant life.


Fruiting Plant: Kelp, Nori, Algea

Exotic plants: Corals, Anemonies, Sponges (I realize that most of these are actually animals but they might work like plants)

On the same vein, it would be nice if you could find different minerals in the mountains than you could find on the low lands.

User avatar
Posts: 626
Joined: Mon May 20, 2013 2:20 am
Location: France, Ile de France

Re: Why no Seaweed?

Post by Touriste » Sat Jun 01, 2013 12:58 am

I moved your post here because it is the same topic

Posts: 11
Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2014 5:36 pm

Re: Why no Seaweed?

Post by Defendor » Fri Mar 07, 2014 7:19 pm

If built at the shoreline, It would make sense to see REED.
I could see them upgrading to WATER LILIES that could spread Awe. There is a bunch of different water liles in the world that Reed could upgrade to, which could have different effects.

Seagrass is a different thing then seaweed. A good reason for beeing able to build some kind of seaweed and seagrasses in ocean would be for the possibility of spreading Natura in oceans.

Here is a nice video of different kind of oceanplants. http://marinebio.org/oceans/forests/
I must say that I was quite surprised (in a negative way) when there was no plants to build in the water at all.

I'm totally against placing corals in plant tree category as some here suggest.

Post Reply