How do you balance 'it doesn't look right, it doesn't look realistic' when some of the weirdest-looking things actually exist on our planet, like Devil's Tower in Wyoming? How do you balance that believability with the fact that it's actually possible?
TL;DRWeird formations can be popular, as with a rock that vanished and was restored, but they won't build odd landmarks widely until they can fill the whole space at consistent quality.
Sometimes we do have these things happen where you have a weird bug, right? But then the fans really like it. We have this one example, it's called the scatter rock, I think that's the name of it, and one day Sebastian sent me a thread from the forum and he was like, oh, was this a point of interest or was this a bug? And people complained that this huge overhang plate on Magda, I think it was, was gone. And apparently it became this travel destination for people to check out. I don't know if we took it out on purpose or if someone just tweaked a setting in the procedural generation and it disappeared, right? But if we look at that, it just looks wrong, right? But then obviously the players see it and feel like, oh, what's this? Looks different. That's super cool. Let's go there. Let's meet up. So we did feel a bit bad that it disappeared, and we brought it back. But in general, we also want more interesting cliff formations, more points of interest for people to find. But like you say, we could build that, but there's so much space that we would need to fill. And until we have a solution that lets us confidently fill all of it at the same quality bar, we don't try to do that. Because then it just sticks out like a sore thumb, right? You have this one area that's neatly dressed, and then you go five minutes to the right and it looks a bit procedural again. So that's a tricky balance.