Re: Cataclysm

Subject: Re: Cataclysm
From: Atte Koivula (
Date: Mon Nov 22 1999 - 10:00:10 EET

> I think there could be areas which are untouched but maybe few kilometers
> around the
> cities are burned. (it would be kind of surprise when you travel away from the
> city just to find
> that hell, here's green forests and such. I didn't mean it to be like all the
> resources would be lost. Just enough to rebuild the cities.) If I remember
> right, I actually mentioned that there are some sapplings left in Sol'daran.
> Woods there are kind of "magical" and recover after the cataclysm.
> (Not too fast anyhow).

I agree with this, and thought it was already clear. All of the major
cities should be more or less in ruins and a considerable area around
them should also be quite desolate and deserted, but most of the world
should be  unaffected by the cataclysm as we need resources.
> It would be foolishness to think that that kind of cataclysm wouldn't affect at
> all. However, if you want to keep that Abhorrence forest there, that's fine I
> just mean that there should be marks which show what happened. (i.e. maybe one
> or two of those floating islands cracked to pieces or fell to ground, lakes
> covered with ash etc.) It's stupid and lame if just the cities are in ruins I
> thought that there could rise new islands after the cataclysm, maybe some
> peninsula could loosen from continent etc. not too big, not too small.

Nodnod, some minor changes in the terrain should be in order. And if we
really need to expand the map for code issues, it should be altered
anyway or else it will look too much like a square, let's kill two birds
with one stone.
/Atte "Yorkaturr" Koivula <>

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b25 : Tue Feb 12 2002 - 00:03:25 EET