latitude, altitude and rain fall to determine wildlife distr

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-11 14:55:42

I propose a system to determine animal, and plant distribution based on three major factors; latitude, altitude and rain fall.
The advantages to this system are as follows:
1. Reduce work load by removing the need to "by hand" distributing of animals and plants around the world.
2. create a system by which a common language can be used by the developers and designers in regards to wildlife distribution design and implementation.
3. reduce computer needs both in computation and memory space.
4. Create a more dynamic world that is more in tune with how the Real World looks and behaves.

The system works as follows:

Wild life's habitat, range and initial placement is determined by three dependant factors Latitude, altitude, and rain fall. These factors have to be designed anyway so no extra work is needed in this regard. After these three factors are defined, presumably on maps, we then determine the ranges each animal, or plant has. Example - A crow has an altitude range of .5-1000 meters a Latitude range of equator (0 degrees latitude) to just below tundra (70 degrees north and south) and a rain fall range of 10 inches a year (desert) to 70 inches a year (not deep forest). Now the crow is fairly common animal with a wide habitat range, but what about animals with smaller ranges and specific environments? By tweaking these variable we can place the specific animal in these environments like say a crocodile. Now a crocodile only lives in water or just out of it and only in warm climate.
Crocodile:
Altitude Range - negative 10 meters to 30 meters
Latitude Range - 0 degrees lat to 35 degrees alt
Rain Fall Range - 20 to 500 inches a year
By the ranges given the crocodile will stay in a specific environment and its distribution can be determined automatically.

There is also the problem of resources but this helps solve this as well...if a predator hunts only a specific animal then the range of that predator should mimic its prey ranges...thus wildlife is allocated to locations where the resources it needs are available. This would work as well with plant eaters...a deers' ranges are similar to the ranges of the plants it eats.

Another problem is changes in temperature due to seasonal changes. The above solution does address this but with some care. The solution to the seasons problem would be to use the majik's DATE as a function of the latitude range. Here is the equation:

a = y+c(x^2-288x)

y - Maximum latitude range
x - day of the year (x=0 on summer solstis)
c - constant
a - adjusted maximum latitude

By using this equation the Crows would migrate away from colder climates as the seasons changed then be able to return as temperatures climbed. If the equation was used on the minimum latitude range as well then this would add the element of seasonal migration for bird, land mammals etc.

A third problem is temperature changes due to altitude. an animal with a range from equator to tundra, like the crow, would be effected by seasons and the differences in temperature between 800 meters at the equator, which the crow would like, and 800 meters at 45 degrees north, which the crow would not like because it would be defacto tundra. To fix this problem another algorithm would be needed that makes the altitude range a function of latitude. The equation is as follows:

x= a-cL

x - Adjusted maximum altitude
a - Maximum Altitude
c - Constant
L - maximum Latitude

Thus the farther north the crow goes the lower its maximum Altitude.

Another problem is rivers and lakes...how do we keep fresh water fish from swimming in water less valleys. The above solution does not cover this and a kludge would have to be implemented that restricts life to to water and land. Which brings up a point the intention of this system is for the most part used for determining ranges which can be plotted on a map other algorithms would be needed for area specific wildlife that is isolated to a continent or island or a specific terrain of of a given area...but this system would help here as well. The initial location of the given wildlife could be locked by these variables in a range ?island? and will not move out of that ?island? unless a PC or sage or god takes a breading pair of that wildlife and places it in another ?island of that range.

Implementation.

To Implement this system a height map and a rain fall map must be made. The current map will be made null and void in terms of forests, grasslands deserts, etc. although the current map could be a template in helping determine rain fall and altitude which in turn would effect the locations of these ?plant life? specific terrains. All Wildlife descriptions would have to have ranges in their description; Latitude, altitude, and rainfall. And these would determine where they could reside on the map.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-11 15:16:07
In-Reply-To: 671

That sounds reasonable and practical indeed. But if we want some flower to grow only in certain place in this world, even though it could grow elsewhere by these three factors, because it needs for example something from soil of that area, we should have system enabling us to have plants that 'only grow near this river' or 'are unique and grow only here - flowers we are so proud of'

So we may want add a 'special growth' system that takes care of these if necessary.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-11 16:31:33
In-Reply-To: 671

just thought of something. For rivers and lakes that are above sea level we can just give themm a very very very high rain fall value. Like 10000 inches a year. Then give any wild life specific to those areas, like freshwater fish a very high rain fall range and an altitude range above sea level where the rivers and lakes are. So they would stay in the lake.

From: sirdar
Date: 2002-02-19 09:30:52
In-Reply-To: 671

I like the idea of being able to separate the animals by Latitude, Altitude and Rain Fall range. The idea of the massive rain fall range to represent lakes and seas works great as well. To make the difference between the salt and fresh water, the Boolean solution sounds sufficient. Okay, all that was already said but gathered the info together.

It means eerrm, 4 variables per animal. I can live with that.

The fact that we can then separate all forms of living beings, such as bacteria and viral diseases is possible with this system as well. It means that in jungles you could actually get that nasty Ebo'nggh'la.

There is also the fact that most of the animals (such as the human race) is active during the day, while some creatures are nocturnal. This could be one more boolean, which being 0, puts the creature asleep.

The daylight border should therefore sweep through the entire map in the period of a reasonable day, changing the daylight booleans from its way.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-17 02:16:26
In-Reply-To: 671

I came up with an idea for fresh water. Basicly a color is split into 3 parts: red, Blue and green. and each color has a number between 0 and 255 to represent its saturation.

So we can split altitude and rain in to 2 of the three colors which leaves one color. That color can represent the depth of fresh water.

so for red we have altitude
# multiplied by 30 so we have a range of 0 to 7650 meters of course we have to set a sea level altitude which we could make it at half 3825. So above sea level is 3825+ and anything below 3825 is under ocean water.

for rain fall we can use green.
from 0 to 255 could represent inches of rain fall per year.

Then we have the blue for depth of fresh water.
lakes will presumably not get deeper the 1000 meters so we use the # multiplied by 4 for a range of 0 to 1016 meters. leaving 0 for blue to signify no water present.

This system would also allow us to make just one map that signifies altitude, rain fall, and freshwater presence and depth.
anyway just an idea.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-11 16:36:20
In-Reply-To: 674

Some animals/plants may be rainfall independent, why not create a blank world template, in which one would simply "color" the rages in where the animal would "spawn" or trees be.

Also one would have to define an algo for tree growth and its relationship with other grees, for example in a pine forest, other trees usualy don't grow at all, because of the acidity of the soil the pine needles decaying create, also the fact that pines grow so fast they are quickly takeing all the sunlight from the ohter trees.

I like the idea of a blank world template where you paint in the ranges, because you can be more specific. I the RW trees and plants are not just constrained by altitude/lat/rain for there growth, two mountain ranges could be seperated by a desert or vast grass land, or water, the same trees/animals wouldn't be found on those two mountain ranges.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-18 22:28:24
In-Reply-To: 675

why not just have a tag for marine plants/animals if they can live in

freshwater/brackish water/saltwater

then algos to determine if the water is salt/fresh/brackish and then decide if the animal can live there if somehow it where to move there on its own or be placed there.

Any water that isn't near a salt water body and not directly connected would highly likely be fresh

And any moveing water body that isn't near salt water (1/2 mile or something if its slow, 1/8th mile if the water moves fast) from where it emptys into the salt water body, would be fresh, within the 1/2 or 1/8 mile of where it emptys would be brackish, and then of course the seas and oceans would be salt.

And if you wanted to make a really really salty lake for example, there should be a variable on water bodys of how much salt they contain, like 100 for normal salt 50 for normal brackish and 1000 if you wanted 10x salter then the ocean. This would allow you to say an animal can live in 60-120 salt. And the algo just deterines where the animal can move based on the salt content.

Elevation shouldn't have anything to do with salt content, you can have a salt lake 10,000km above sea level, or fresh water 100m below sea level. Or even just dry land below sea level.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-11 19:53:31
In-Reply-To: 675

But there is not actual rain, is there? :)

True, this will solve the problem. And if we give rivers and lakes value, say 10 000 and seas 20 000 then we can separate the salt and fresh waters. If there is fishes that survive in both areas just give them value range 10 000 - 20 000.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-11 19:04:32
In-Reply-To: 676

Some animals/plants may be rainfall independent
then give a wide range for the rain fall range like i did with the crow.

why not create a blank world template, in which one would simply "color" the rages in where the animal would "spawn" or trees be.

Becouse these things are dependent in RL on the mentioned constants Latitude, alitude, rainfall. Plus creating a map for every species of plant and animal would be tedious and work intensive. And it would create an artificial world where an animal live in a swamp in one area but in another area dosn't live in an identical type swamp even though it lives right next to it a forest. This preposal allows us not to have to think about such unreal inconsistancies.

Also one would have to define an algo for tree growth and its relationship with other grees, for example in a pine forest, other trees usualy don't grow at all, because of the acidity of the soil the pine needles decaying create, also the fact that pines grow so fast they are quickly takeing all the sunlight from the other trees.

Most of this can be solved by adusting the wildlifes "rain fall range" example - if we have a plant that we want to grow at the edge of forests and not in them, becouse its to shady, then you put them in a slightly less rainfall range then the trees of the forest and slightly more rainfall range of the grasslands sourounding the forest. It only requires that the rain fall map be of a high enough resolution to allow this.You are right that this will not cover all situation but they will cover most of them. The other "special" situations" can be addressed with additional alogirithms for the specific behaviors and habitat requirments of the species. Like an alogrthm for a tree that Biases it away from growing near acidic pine tree forests.

In the RW trees and plants are not just constrained by altitude/lat/rain for there growth, two mountain ranges could be seperated by a desert or vast grass land, or water, the same trees/animals wouldn't be found on those two mountain ranges.

You are right RW plants are not "JUST" constrained by altitude, latitude and rain fall, but these are the MAJOR constants that relegate their habitats and ranges, and most other veriables that effect these ranges and habitats can be derived from altitude, latitude and rain fall. Such as tempreture and food desity(just specify a species ranges so they corispond with its needs with the wildlife it eats. The small number of other variables that effect a species can be solved with the addition of other alogrythms. Example - A tree that only grows in a secret valley. The ranges made for this tree constrain the it fairly well but there is an enviornent just over the mountians that is identical to the enviornment of the valley. TO solve simple remove the trees that grow out side of the valley from the DB. Unless a someone gets seeds or transplants these trees they will remain in the valley only.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-11 21:08:28
In-Reply-To: 684

this is good but it made me think about it more...the rain should be 10000 for both the rivers and the sea and if you want to have fish that can live in either just give a range for altitude of -1000 to 500 ft then the fish would still reside in both. Also for something like salmon which live in the ocean as adults but spawn up rivers to breed you could add an alogrithm to the altitude range that fluctuates through the year...so when its the peak of spawning season the altitude range will be 100 to 500 ft and as the year progresses the altitude range will get lower say to -1000 to -2 feet six months later. From there the range goes back up for them to spawn the next year. This way we can create salmon river fishing seasons.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-11 22:15:30
In-Reply-To: 685

That's true.. Still we should prevent the salmon ending up to lakes somehow.. As far as I know they do not go to lakes.

And if someone wants to fish some particular species from eg. some paticular lake, there can be added a depth variabe for rod and line fishing. If you know enough from fishes you can hunt for certain fish.

Perches live in 10 - 50 ft but salmon in 80 - 150.. hmm.. salmon this evening. Need for long line.

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-17 12:12:13
In-Reply-To: 688

Well, salmon and trout are generally same fish. Trouts just live in lakes and salmon's in rivers and sea. Actually I use finnish word "lohi" for both salmon and trouts. Proper names would be trout for taimen (a freshwater fish), salmon for lohi (sea/river dwelling) and rainbow trout for kirjolohi which has both fresh and salt water versions.

- Beregar

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-18 22:51:17
In-Reply-To: 733

I think water should just have a salt content variable, (give desingers more freedom in makeing salt lakes at high altiudes) and animals/plants that live in water
should have two variables

Salt range
Depth range

refer to my other post in thread about salt content of water. :P

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-17 17:42:19
In-Reply-To: 737

not....these are not the same fish they have different life cycles can't breed with one another, eat different food grow to different sizes etc. saying that they are the same is like saying that wolves and lions are the same mamal.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-18 20:06:16
In-Reply-To: 745

There not the same fish but in the same family of fish, they have similar body designs and other attributes. They are closer related then trout and catfish. :P

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-17 19:53:27
In-Reply-To: 745

Ok. I'm not an expert here.. and this is truly OT so let's just forget it :) It's not that important anyway.

From: darshan
Date: 2002-02-19 00:35:30
In-Reply-To: 789

Raeky, nobody will care about differentiating salt water fish from sweetwater fish. There is no point at all in making such a distinction. And if we must separate salt and sweet, the variable is boolean, not numeric.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-19 02:18:19
In-Reply-To: 792

actually i think it would be cool if all the world only had freashwater. It isn't old enough to build up that much of a salenity consentration, and none of the water voyages would be long enough to really need much freshwater and it would allow for civilisations to live on the water in floating cities. Anyway just an idea.

drshn is correct either way. fresh and salt water do not need any numeric justification.

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-19 07:24:28
In-Reply-To: 794

then an "altitude" or better "Depth" variable for marine animals would be in order, an ocean fish will only move arround in water deaper than a set value. And if you want fish from the rivers to never go into the ocean then there altitude would be higher then sea level, so they will only live in rivers, and moutain stream fish would have an even higher altitude...

ok.. i was wrong about salt. :P

How many years in like our time has the majik world existed when they play starts? No salt water is a good idea.

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-19 09:38:40
In-Reply-To: 794

I don't understand what age of the world has to do with Majik or modern physics (geology/whatever) for that matter. If we want make half of the ocean salt water and the rest fresh water, nothing prevents us from doing so.

Majik is a fantasy world, do not mess things up with too rational explanations or we end up having another real world!

- Beregar

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-19 09:29:08
In-Reply-To: 798

raecky wrote:
How many years in like our time has the majik world existed when they play starts?

more then 10,000 which is human history....what happened before, and how long it was is anyones guess...but its assumed to be less then a million years....ie less then 1/5000th the age of the earth so presumably with less then 1/5000th the amount of desolved salt in ocean water.
then an "altitude" or better "Depth" variable for marine animals would be in order, an ocean fish will only move arround in water deaper than a set value

the "depth" variable is altitude...mountian lake trout live at 1000 meters and giant squid live at -2000 meters. This has never been the problem....perhaps you should reread or read the previouse posts on this subject. Altitude has been a variable from the begining.

--hook

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-20 03:08:36
In-Reply-To: 799

"raecky" how nice. :P

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-19 10:14:02
In-Reply-To: 800

Hmm, sounds good. Therefore there is possibility for diseases and so they can be included to normal life system just like all other living creatures..

This way we do not have to separate them and make a new system for bacteria life.

From: darshan
Date: 2002-02-19 11:08:56
In-Reply-To: 800

FWIW, representing lakes and seas with rainfall was already shot down as a ridiculous idea. Hook reportedly came up with something better later on.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-19 09:42:44
In-Reply-To: 801

this is my point beregar...nothing is preventing us from making the oceans fresh water...the only question is will we make it fresh?

--hook

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-20 03:10:26
In-Reply-To: 802

If it is fresh then sea travel will be much easier, for one dosn't have to carry water to drink. Is the goal to make sea travel easy or hard?

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-19 17:47:06
In-Reply-To: 805

BACTERIA LIFE? You must be kidding. If I hear a word about bacter's being reason for diseases in majik, I will start bashing heads! :)

- Beregar

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-19 19:06:44
In-Reply-To: 808

About salt and freshwater stuff. I really would like to see both salt and fresh water. Why? Because it makes travelling more dangerous, you actually have to keep water supplies with you or then drink from some fresh water supply. Also, I want poisonous water too, it is not healthy to drink swamp water because it is either poisonous or diseased.

- Beregar

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-19 17:57:55
In-Reply-To: 818

I see no problem with using bacteria in decriptions. Of course no player will ever know what a bacteria or virus is...they will just know them as "red death" or "the rotting" etc. But if designers feel they can better decribe deseases with the terms bacteria or virus more power to them. There is no reason that deseases in majik cannot spread the same way they do in real life....If designers want their desease to work like a biological pathogen then i don't see why using these terms should be off limits. The worldbook is no longer public remember.

--hook

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-19 18:05:57
In-Reply-To: 822

*calmly wields a club and takes a swing at Hook's head*
Diseases are something that gods cause, curses of gods. I don't want Majik to become too real world like or it will lose its fantasy theme and become a scientific world testing model!

Haven't you already noticed effects of this? People state things like: there can't be rivers in Loribak isle because it is (according to physics) too small for it. This is starting to look like a serious real-life syndrome to me. Of course, the opposite is also true: we shouldn't end up doing stupid design and decisions just because we call it fantasy. There is a line between them and for me, it is pretty clear. Too much either is bad.

While the worldbook is not public anymore, that doesn't mean we will fill it with complete crap. There is still need for (at least) meager amount of concistency and it breaks if explain in the worldbook that diseases are caused by the gods (a fantasy explanation) and some other designer states that they are caused by the bacteria (scientific explanation) and since this is a fantasy world, I'd certainly favor the fantasy explanation which (imho) leaves a lot more room.

- Beregar

From: origon
Date: 2002-02-19 18:35:35
In-Reply-To: 824

If diseases can not spread from person to person, and can only be placed by gods, are they then not curses?
I want to see spreading diseases.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-19 18:24:57
In-Reply-To: 824

why are "Diseases ...something that gods cause, curses of gods" only...there is no reason that mage or a sage or some other thing created a desease. And whats stopping these beings from making deseases that behave like RL biological pathogens. I am not saying that this is the only way deseases should be treated in majik...but it should not be excluded entirely. It is one of the ways in which deseases CAN be DESCRIBED in the world book. Using the terms bacteria and virus in a desc are not bad so long as they help convay the meaning of what the designer wanted.

If you are worried that such terms will be used "in game" then i share you fear. Desease "in game" should be perseved as a dreaded mystery. But design and code are not mysteries. Excluding usefull terms to help designers describe things is counter productive....its like the equator problem...yes there is not an equator in majik becouse the world is not round...but to describe the hottests latitude it is a usefull descriptive term...ie should not be excluded from use in descriptions

You, yourself have used the terms cellural, tissues, nerve system.

It causes cellural (structural) damage to tissues as well as internal damage to for example nerve system. If we had to use the term, I'd rather define it as toxification (a bad word?).

Obviously these terms are very real word. Who is to say if there are nerves or cells in majik? That is irrelevent. You used these terms to be specific in what you were describing. Bacteria and virus are useful specific terms for describing things in the majik world.

--hook

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-19 18:47:21
In-Reply-To: 828

What prevents them from spreading person to person? Do you need bacteria to make them spread from person to person? If you have ready any historical books, you would be aware that people often thought that plagues were curses of the gods and they certainly DID spread from person to person. Also, I never meant that curse of a god is only option, I just gave an example and encouraged people to avoid too scientific explanations. There should be diseases invented by the ancients and even by the mortals, nothing prevents this. There also should be rodents and the like which spread diseases.

Hook, there is quite a big difference between using terms like nerve system and tissue as a reference and actually stating that it is how things work. If you read it carefully again, you will probably notice that I never said that things actually work that way, there is a huge difference and, at least for me, it is obvious.

- Beregar

From: yorkaturr
Date: 2002-02-19 19:06:36
In-Reply-To: 831

Just as a little sidenote, I recently saw a BBC documentary where it stated that it wasn't until the 20th century that malaria was identified to be caused by mosquitos, and the infamous DDT was invented only a short while after this.

The name malaria, "Mal Aria", is italian, and means "bad air". It was thought that malaria infections were caused by breathing foul-smelling swamp fumes or drinking swamp water. Quite funny :P

In any case, I agree with Beregar that there is a very thin, fine line between excessive realism and overt imagination. If I had to come up with rules of thumb to avoid both, then I would say that, in respect to the first issue, if it takes more than all-round education to explain the scientific process, then too much science is involved. And, in respect to the second, if it cannot be logically described, too much fantasy is involved. Please note that logic doesn't always come down to science.

From: Archantes
Date: 2002-02-19 21:23:42
In-Reply-To: 833

Ok, I did not understand one thing.. Tell me if I'm just stupid.. ;) but is it so that you can't get sick if that is not the god's will? You get cold only if god decides so?

And to malaria thing.. the discussion started when someone mentioned a disease that starts from jungles. So, if it is just said ti be bad air or similar.. We can have it threated as lifeform - If we want to include it to same system with all others. I may be easier that way. But if there is no need for that.. just leave it.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-19 19:36:52
In-Reply-To: 834

well i thought of water travel as well...i even mentioned it before in the thread. The thing is that none of the land masses are far enough apart for any real long sea trips.( longer then 3 days) So having salt water and fresh water for this purpose is pointless...as to "bad' water this is fine just describe your bacteria so that it resides in swamps :) or your "mystical fluid of poisinous marsh water"...how ever you wish to describe it.

--hook

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-20 03:21:06
In-Reply-To: 835

three days is still pretty long, when water is a concern... And since there is no like in game navigation, one can fairly easily get lost in the sea, one wrong turn and its 6 days to land, another and its 9 days, etc...

From: Nahl_Shadore
Date: 2002-02-19 22:15:45
In-Reply-To: 841

There will not actually be bacteria in the game (I hope nobody tries to model it :) ), it would just be used as a way to describe how a disease operates/travels.

and while I agree that in the game there should be nothing like this, wasn't the goal of majik to be (somewhat) realistic?
quote from worldbook->DesignApproach:
"the most realistic and believable approach that can be fathomed should be considered first, preferably specifically avoiding fantasy clichés"
and
"Neither convenience nor simplicity should be the first aspects considered when designing"

now for implementing the diseases, we don't have to include any complex scientific descriptions, but using real life situations to describe patterns such as where a disease can be found (eg: bacteria can only exist at certain temperatures, meaning you can't catch a cold in the arctic, etc.) then it may make the implementation easier

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-20 13:10:06
In-Reply-To: 845

Yes, emphasis on word somewhat in this context. As yorka said if explanation gets too technical, it is not a good one and if it is too absurd, it is not a good one.

Too much science in design == bad
Too much "absurd fantasy" == bad

Oh, and I started this discussion because I want people to start (or continue) thinking too scientifically. Not because I fear someone would add such explanation to worldbook. However, I believe that Archantes comment proves my concern about science orientated thinking true: Yorka and I both gave a simple fantasy explanation: I said that diseases could be curses from gods and yorka stated that still in 20th century (or something like that) people believed that malaria spread by breathing "bad air".

Think medieval plagues, people generally thought that they were curses from the god etc etc. It should be obvious that I didn't mean any god should specifically curse individual people, instead of that I meant that "in ancient times Harum created a horrible disease to destroy a mortal blah blah race that dared to deride him". The disease could be still lurking there.

Also, what Nahl said proves the thing once more! Nothing should tie diseases to certain places. Gods, ancient, magic users and the like should be able to curse cities and people with vermin and diseases etc etc. You can catch cold outside the arctic too, such design is veeery poor. Same way you should be able to catch a jungle fever outside the jungles, it IS fever and there certainly will be similar diseases with same symptoms. It is just called jungle fever among jungle living races.

EOP

- Beregar

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-20 03:18:31
In-Reply-To: 845

the common cold is caused by a virus.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-20 07:44:27
In-Reply-To: 849

there is no goal in this regard...the whole majik world map could fit in afganistan. The lack of freashwater would not be a constraint in any water voyage taken in majik. I have said this four times now on this very thread...do you even read what other people write on these forums or do you just fixate on one thing and ignore the rest?

-hook

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-20 07:35:45
In-Reply-To: 851

For navigation just look at the position of the sun or look at the stars....or just follow land...there are really no major areas that can't be reached over water that require being out of site of land for more then a day. Please look at the world map reaky.
The reason I used 3 days is becouse that is how long it takes to die of thirst in RL.

Becouse of the constaints of the map Magellan like travels will not be in the majik game. Though Odyssey like travels will....think tarums following the coast of the mediterranean...not ocean going clipper ships crossing the atlantic.

The whole map of majik could fit in the Mediterranean sea...dying of thirst was not a real problem for the Greeks of old. So I doubt it could be a problem for sea travaling Majikese.

From: beregar
Date: 2002-02-20 13:11:18
In-Reply-To: 856

You underestimate players' stupidity

From: raeky
Date: 2002-02-20 22:20:48
In-Reply-To: 857

lol.... i've read everything... others have talked about havieng salt water too, you being the only one i think that wants just fresh.

From: hook
Date: 2002-02-20 18:37:10
In-Reply-To: 859

Too much science in design == bad
Too much "absurd fantasy" == bad

This is fine but yorka also said that logic and ration WERE importatant...

Same way you should be able to catch a jungle fever outside the jungles, it IS fever and there certainly will be similar diseases with same symptoms. It is just called jungle fever among jungle living races.

Not all deseases are contages and yes they can be designed to be regionally specific. If some one wants to design them that way, using the wildlife range calculator to help them, then this is fine as well. Nothing should prevent maleria (jungle fever) from being passed from a vetor (like a mascito for maleria) that only lives in certain areas...if you read my descriptions of wights and yorkyght fungi you will see that people can only be infected by it in certian areas. And this is becouse of the growing limitations of the fungis. I think these descriptions balance both science and fantacy well. But you might hate it becouse it uses logic and ration...I don't think yorka has any problem with too technical of descriptions. Logic is not bad. In fact using a high degree of it is good. Balanceing the fantacy and scinece in a description should in no way stop a designer from being specific. If a desease is called a vapor or a contagious biological agent it still needs its behavior to be described in detailed, specific and logical manner.

-hook

From: Rakel
Date: 2002-03-01 09:53:29
In-Reply-To: 859

Think medieval plagues, people generally thought that they were curses from the god etc etc.

Or by Jews. It might be nice to have a race or group of people, who could be carriers to some nasty disease but immune to it. :)