Unique asteroid names

[dbenage-cx]

Asteroids are currently labelled the same, resulting in duplicate names with multiple asteroids in a system.
I'm partial to the original decision to not number asteroids, some way to give a system unique name could still be done.
MatGB has asked about an optional positional naming for planets.
If seven unique names be imagined for asteroids in each orbital position (and 7 more for Nebula creation), both issues can be tackled together (and this discussion can turn into the names for each).

Otherwise, we could define a list of asteroid suffixes and let the game choose among the remaining at random. This treats positional naming as a separate issue.

[MatGB]

This could be cool, sidenote: I introduced the "nebula remnants" thing on a whim when I first got the nebulas-create-planets effects working (lots of help from Geoff on that), Sloth kept it when he expanded the system to create random planets, etc.

If we've got a better naming scheme for asteroids generally, there is zero reason to keep the nebula remnants naming, unless it's really wanted, so 7 total names should be fine.

I shall go do some research.

[dbenage-cx]

Some proposals (any suggestions appreciated)
I - Inner Belt
II - Nebula Remnants
III - ?
IV - Outer Belt
V - Planetary Remnants
VI - Satellite Cluster
VII - Sparse Oort Cloud

Shorter names would be great, though they should probably all roughly equate to the same total mass (the oort cloud may be a stretch).

[Sloth]

Some proposals (any suggestions appreciated)
I - Inner Belt
II - Nebula Remnants
III - ?
IV - Outer Belt
V - Planetary Remnants
VI - Satellite Cluster
VII - Sparse Oort Cloud

Shorter names would be great, though they should probably all roughly equate to the same total mass (the oort cloud may be a stretch).

Nebula Remnants and Planetary Remnants sound like they were created by in-game events.

[MatGB]

Agreed, but inner/outer and similar works,. plus we can have Kuiper Belt and Hills Cloud, bit human centric but it's what people know (and I first encountered the idea of an Oort cloud in McCaffery).

I think keep the remnants names for creation effects (we really need a planet buster device at some point, both for the player to use and as a form of attack) and go with astronomy sounding names for there-at-the-start stuff.

[Doc Tectonic]

May I suggest:

I - Sungrazers (Sg)
II - Inner Belt (IB)
III - Eccentrics (Ec)
IV - Main Belt (MB)
V - Trojans (Tj)
VI - Outer Belt (OB)
VII - Kuiper Belt (KB)

0 - Asteroids (As)

If there's only one asteroid belt in the system, it should probably be named simply "Asteroids", regardless of position. Eccentrics could be placed in any orbital position, not just orbit III. (I thought about "Orbit-Crossers" there, but that string is significantly longer than the other names, and it implies the existence of an inhabited planet nearby to make sense.) Trojans should technically share their orbit with another planet (probably a big gas giant), but I doubt it'll break anyone's immersion in the game to not make that distinction.

I listed short abbreviations in parentheses for each group in case there are places in the UI that need a relatively short name for the planet and would have layout problems with something like "Corona Borealis ξ Sungrazers".

Some proposals (any suggestions appreciated)
I - Inner Belt
II - Nebula Remnants
III - ?
IV - Outer Belt
V - Planetary Remnants
VI - Satellite Cluster
VII - Sparse Oort Cloud

Shorter names would be great, though they should probably all roughly equate to the same total mass (the oort cloud may be a stretch).

[dbenage-cx]

Welcome to the forums doc, and thank you for these suggestions!

My concern with Kuiper Belt is not so much it being human centric, but that it is a proper name that would not apply to a classification.
In that vein, we could make some up: Broher Cluster, Vezzra Cloud, Morlic Field, Mat's Belt, etc

If there's only one asteroid belt in the system, it should probably be named simply "Asteroids", regardless of position.

I'd like that, part of the reason for omission was not wanting to rename planets after the universe is generated (a more involved change here might turn into a separate PR).
Will revisit the idea this week, maybe different lists based on number of belts already present.

[Vezzra]

In that vein, we could make some up: Broher Cluster, Vezzra Cloud, Morlic Field, Mat's Belt, etc

[Doc Tectonic]

Welcome to the forums doc, and thank you for these suggestions!

My concern with Kuiper Belt is not so much it being human centric, but that it is a proper name that would not apply to a classification.

Thanks!

That's a good point. Although I think as we find evidence of Kuiper Belt-type structures outside our solar system, it's starting to be used as the name for that entire class of objects. Googling for "extrasolar kuiper belt" turns up a number of hits for scientific articles that talk about "a Kuiper belt" or "Kuiper belts". So it may not be a proper name for too much longer, and if we did decide to use it as a generic term, I think we'd be in good company.

[MatGB]

In that vein, we could make some up: Broher Cluster, Vezzra Cloud, Morlic Field, Mat's Belt, etc

Special: generally expands in size but once a year contracts sharply, no actual benefit

Oh, and I agree with Doc, the term Kuiper Belt and Oort Cloud are both being used for extra-solar discoveries, there's no reason we can't use them as well.