Teck

I can definitely see the interesting dynamic this could bring to gameplay. Unfortunately, I think a water rework would probably be needed for in order to fully capitalize on this. I know water has been pushed multiple times, but I do hope it still gets revisited somewhat soon.

It might just be a result of taking some months away from the game to come in blind to new updates, but I was caught off guard by the 1.0 announcement. Specifically, I think that the decision NOT to include a statement in the steam news post that 1.0 represented a naming convention change that aligned with alpha 22 was less useful to those like me who are already familiar with the game. It might be beneficial to have a mention like that in the next news post that goes out.

As someone who has lived in various parts of Arizona for nearly 40 years, I can promise you that any statements of "swampland" in this state are misleading at best. Even referring to the site linked above does not accurately portray the areas. I can't speak to all of them, but for example, I have been to pecks lake north of cottonwood many times, and the supposed "swamp" there is much closer to marsh, but is often bone dry. The same can be said of Pittsburg Point near Lake Havasu. The cluster on the east side of the map is in around the Baldy Peak area with noticeably more rain fall, but it is of higher elevation mountain ranges that, again, couldn't be described as swamp. I don't want my insights to be evidence of my argument against adding swamp biomes to the game per se, but using it as evidence of actual existence of swampland a la Louisiana bayou or Florida everglades is simply incorrect. It is not even close. I think biome inclusion discussion should reflect value to the game environment because it is already an unbalanced representation of the Arizona landscapes as it is.