Planet climates

For what's not in 'Top Priority Game Design'. Post your ideas, visions, suggestions for the game, rules, modifications, etc.

Moderator: Oberlus

Message
Author
Daveybaby
Small Juggernaut
Posts: 724
Joined: Mon Sep 01, 2003 11:07 am
Location: Hastings, UK

#16 Post by Daveybaby »

Ray K wrote:
Daveybaby wrote:As with *everything* else in this game, if you feel your way is that much better, then wait for the game to be finished and 'just' mod it in (although i suspect that the amount of work you would have to do would be large, and will kinda prove my point).
That all depends on how loosely or tightly coupled the planet model is to the rest of the game. Unless it is developed with an eye towards future modding (unlikely because it requires more effort that may not be justified), it will be too tightly coupled to replace.
Thats exactly my point. If this stuff is tightly coupled, all the more reason to draw a line under it so that the rest of the design has a stable foundation.
The COW Project : You have a spy in your midst.

Ablaze
Creative Contributor
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Aug 26, 2003 6:10 pm
Location: Amidst the Inferno.

#17 Post by Ablaze »

Ray K wrote:I think that's a perfectly reasonable contention.. that not all environments are equally conducive to life. If they were, then you'd have to explain why every planet is not already occupied by some form of indigenous life; a difficult task since we know conclusively that this is not true.
What?? Astronomers don't know practically anything conclusively, least of all what a sign of life is.

Most astronomers look for signs of life like us, which is absurd. Look at how many different types of life are on this one planet, and we’ve probably all evolved from the same ancestors. What could possibly give them the idea that a life from that evolved from an entirely different ancestor would be anywhere near as similar to us as we are to a fly? We could probably interact with alien life for years before realizing it was even alive.

Do we look into nebulas to see if they are exhibiting signs of intelligence? No. Do we send probes outside of our sun’s influence to listen to the interstellar medium? No. Practically the only things astronomers do is look for signs of ancient radio waves and small rocky planets which may be able to sustain our form of life. Our current methods are entirely inadequate even for those misguided approaches.

The only things astronomers know anything about with any detail are the brightest parts of the universe. If it doesn’t emit a massive amount of light, chances are we don’t know about it. We know from the behavior of galaxies that at least half of the matter in the universe is not bright matter, but dark matter.. and we know nothing about it. We can’t even tell where it is.

In the light of all these facts, how can you say that we know anything about the universe conclusively.. let alone enough to say what is not there.
Time flies like the wind, fruit flies like bananas.

Ray K
Krill Swarm
Posts: 12
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2004 1:41 am

#18 Post by Ray K »

Ablaze wrote:In the light of all these facts, how can you say that we know anything about the universe conclusively.. let alone enough to say what is not there.
For 4X gaming purposes, nobody cares about unintelligent or microbial life forms.

There are about 20 bodies in our solar system alone that could qualify as a planet (however small) in a MOO-style game. Of that 20, we know fairly conclusively that only 1 has developed intelligent life.

Does a Venusian-style planet on the FO planet wheel have an equal chance at forming life as a Terran planet? If so, why do that in direct contradiction of known facts?

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12692
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#19 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Ablaze wrote:Most astronomers look for signs of life like us, which is absurd. Look at how many different types of life are on this one planet, and we’ve probably all evolved from the same ancestors. What could possibly give them the idea that a life from that evolved from an entirely different ancestor would be anywhere near as similar to us as we are to a fly?
I'm not sure if you're talking about carbon chauvinism here, but non-carbon biology just isn't that plausible or practical compared to us-like carbon-based life. It's not impossible, but it's reasonable to assume that the conditions necessary for other biochemistries are rather rare and/or that "life" is unlikely to appear even if the conditions for it were common.
We could probably interact with alien life for years before realizing it was even alive.
This is a reason to focus on looking for life like us, not life unlike us. If we wouldn't know it if we saw it up close, looking through telescopes isn't going to do much good, is it?
Do we look into nebulas to see if they are exhibiting signs of intelligence? No.
As much as we look anywhere, yes. For one thing, radio telescopes don't have infinite angular resolution... so there's not necessarily any difference between looking at a star and looking at the nebula it's inside, beside, in front of or behind. And we do look at stars in nebulas... and at things behind nebulas (which is effectively the same as looking at the nebula itself, in the space between the stars that are in it). We also look at entire galaxies or globular clusters or sattelite galaxies. If there was a giant intelligent nebula emitting massive "I'm here!" signals in something else really far away, we'd probably detect it as a signal from the something else.
Do we send probes outside of our sun’s influence to listen to the interstellar medium? No.
What do you mean by "listen to the interstellar medium" ? Why would this be any better than using directed scans from Earth?
Practically the only things astronomers do is look for signs of ancient radio waves and small rocky planets which may be able to sustain our form of life. Our current methods are entirely inadequate even for those misguided approaches.
Even if we knew there were other kinds of life, looking for life like us would not be "misguided", since, as you said, we might "interact" with other kinds for years and not even know it. Further, since us-like life is the only kind we know of, and significantly non-us-like life seems chemically improbable, looking for us-like seems like a pretty good bet.

And how would you propose to look for non-us-like life even if we did know it was there and what it was like? Radio waves are pretty much the best way to look at stuff that's really far away, as far as I know... and are sufficiently obvious that a reasonably advanced extraterrestrial civilization that wanted to be found would probably use radio waves to make itself known.
The only things astronomers know anything about with any detail are the brightest parts of the universe. If it doesn’t emit a massive amount of light, chances are we don’t know about it. We know from the behavior of galaxies that at least half of the matter in the universe is not bright matter, but dark matter.. and we know nothing about it. We can’t even tell where it is.
We can tell the distribution of dark matter inside galaxies quite well by examining the discrepancies between the gravitational forces acting on visible matter moving in the galaxies and what would be expected by the known theories of gravity... It's not just that it's there... it's also where it is.

We also have a number of theories and hypothesis about what dark matter might be, based on the standard model of particle physics.
In the light of all these facts, how can you say that we know anything about the universe conclusively.. let alone enough to say what is not there.
This is an effectively meaningless generalization. We know lots of things that are and aren't in existance and / or possible, and lots of things that are one or both, and can do so without direct observation in some cases.

herbert_vaucanson
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:47 am
Location: European peninsula

Wheel, Asteroids, Dilitium

#20 Post by herbert_vaucanson »

guiguibaah wrote:Although the wheel system is set in stone and is not going to change, what should be noted is that this wheel system is for solid / rock based planets.

A long time ago the developers mused about an alternate system for gas giants. [...] Nothing has really been set in stone about asteroids or comets either [...]
My recommendation is to propose ideas (such as an alternate to the wheel system) to areas that haven't been settled so the developers have a greater pool of ideas to fish from.
Got the message (shelves something and sighs). So now I propose a reordering/enrichment of the wheel:

Terran ----------
... | ................. |
Arid ............ Ocean
... | ................. |
Desert ........ Tundra
... | ................. |
Barren ......... Iceball
... | ................. |
Radiated ....... Methanic
... | ................. |
Inferno ........ Swamp
... | ................. |
Toxic-------- Primordial

The undelying idea is to group closely environments that have something in common. So the presence of water is concentrated around Ocean, the oxigen atmosphere around Terran, the "ammonia" atmosphere around Swamp, the temperature peaks around Inferno ad Iceball.

It is beefed up on the "far side", so that it is easier for races to actually like it there without finding our side also inviting. And look more exotic, too. The difference from Toxic to Methanic would be a decrease in gas pressure, a shift from CO2 and H3SO4 to NH3, CH4 and H2O, and a decrease in temperature.

For an idea of the environments:

Arid ------- Arrakis
Desert ---- Mars
Barren ---- Moon, Callisto...
Radiated - Mercury
Inferno ----- Io? or a pseudo-molten ball?
Toxic ----- (real) Venus
Primordial - pre-life Earth?
Swamp --- Sci-Fi Venus
Methanic - Ganimede, Titan (but a bit warmer)
Iceball ---- Europa, Pluto
Tundra ---- Asimov's Comporellen
Ocean ---- Asimov's Alpha Centauri
Terran ---- a bit drier than Earth...

I would keep the "within two" rule for optimality. On the spot, excellent. One away, good. 2 away adequate. 3 or more away, aw c'mon! In case of humans, this would mean that we go well from desert to tundra (neat, uh?).
For water-thingies, from Arid to Iceball. For lizards, from Inferno to Methanic (provided that they like Primordial). For the oh-so-loved lavamen, from Barren to Primordial. For the crystals, from Ocean to Swamp (they would love Iceball, imho). For the machines, from Terran to Radiated (they shall like Deserts).
I see furthermore the Wookies on Tundra, the insects on Arid, the energy-beings on Radiated, the plants on Swamp...

It all seems to work, to me :D

Ok, so you want me to kick ass on gas giants and asteroids? Here I do :twisted:

Observation 1: asteroids are a good and easy source of solid material.
So an asteroid field gives system-wide bonuses to terraforming and can support a really productive mining complex (space object, must be built elsewhere and moved in loco, non refittable, scrappable, max three of such for every asteroid field).
Planetary rings instead are too thin to mine, but I would associate them to a planet's terraforming bonus. Rings on gas giants would help the terraforming of that giant's satellites... I am still hoping to see satellites independently colonisable, just as planets.

Observation 2: there is no "real" surface in gas giants, the gravity well is steep, planet-wide storms and wind bands are the norm. But the core could contain a lot of rare stuff formed in extreme physical conditions.
So, after artificial gravity and some good armor-shield tech, floating colonies can be build, which could produce one of some rare resources, depending on the color of the gas giant.
So a gas giant would ALWAYS provide one special resource late in the game, while such resources would be very rare on terran planets. But then we would need to lay down a special resources system. Dilitium, anyone?
Last edited by herbert_vaucanson on Wed Mar 23, 2005 5:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
- Well, what about this: a lot of empty space, colored balls spinning around, the occasional nifty exlosion, and some infestation here and there to give it the "lived in" feel?
- It shouldn't take more than a week... ok, I am in.

Rapunzel
Pupating Mass
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Germany

#21 Post by Rapunzel »

Is there anything like a gravitation ring, ähh string??
There could be some gravitational "Terraforming" efforts to make a planet mor suitable for your Race, which could mean that it becomes less suitable for others.
Dieser Text basiert ausschließlich auf frei erfundener Interpunktion und Orthographie. Jegliche Uebereinstimmungen mit geltenden Regelungen sind rein zufaellig und wurden nicht beabsichtigt.

herbert_vaucanson
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:47 am
Location: European peninsula

#22 Post by herbert_vaucanson »

Rapunzel wrote:Is there anything like a gravitation ring, ähh string??
There could be some gravitational "Terraforming" efforts to make a planet mor suitable for your Race, which could mean that it becomes less suitable for others.
I don't know if I get what you mean, but yes, terraforming is in, and does exactly what you think. It "rotates" the environment of the planet according to the wheel. Early techs might allow you a small rotation for a high price and maybe an upkeep, while higher techs will enlarge your terraforming capability while reducing the costs.
And it is not done only gravitationally - you can go chemical, biological, geological, planeto-magnetical... although I expect gravitech and nanobiotech to be the late-game big guns.
- Well, what about this: a lot of empty space, colored balls spinning around, the occasional nifty exlosion, and some infestation here and there to give it the "lived in" feel?
- It shouldn't take more than a week... ok, I am in.

Rapunzel
Pupating Mass
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Germany

#23 Post by Rapunzel »

I was aiming at the gravitational "Terraforming". I was wondering wether gravity was part of the wheel. If gravity is part of the wheel, then I'm confused, since gravity does not go in circles, but from 0 (empty space) to maxInt (or so). I would have thought that this is a different Issue.
Gryvity does have nothing to do with planet environment (as I see it, hmm maybe Gas Giants do have a speacial environment that has to do with gravity).

PS: you biger wheel seems fine to me...
Is the sice and content of the Wheel still up for debate?
Dieser Text basiert ausschließlich auf frei erfundener Interpunktion und Orthographie. Jegliche Uebereinstimmungen mit geltenden Regelungen sind rein zufaellig und wurden nicht beabsichtigt.

herbert_vaucanson
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:47 am
Location: European peninsula

#24 Post by herbert_vaucanson »

Rapunzel wrote: [...] I was wondering wether gravity was part of the wheel. If gravity is part of the wheel [...]
Now I get it. The answer is: I do not know... I did not find it in the current blueprints. In Moo2 the environment type, the gravity pull and the mineral richness were on different axes. You could independently terraform the environment and adjust the gravity pull to your liking. But you could not change mineral richness in any way, of course. Let us see if somebody knows...
Rapunzel wrote: [...]
PS: you biger wheel seems fine to me...
Is the sice and content of the Wheel still up for debate?
Thanks for the support :D
As for the question, the Holy Book says:
Geoff the Medio wrote:The EP wheel has been passed and implemented. It's not going to fundamentally change.

At most, another environment or a slight reorganizing of the present environments might happen. Less likely, adding smaller gradations between environments to make terraforming more workable might happen, though I don't know if Aquitaine ever commented on that idea [...]
So I think we are waiting for a bit of thundering and smiting from Aquitaine.
- Well, what about this: a lot of empty space, colored balls spinning around, the occasional nifty exlosion, and some infestation here and there to give it the "lived in" feel?
- It shouldn't take more than a week... ok, I am in.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12692
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#25 Post by Geoff the Medio »

Re: Gravity terraforming: Planets have a "size" and well as an environment, but I doubt there'll be any complicated system of gravity variations separate from size. There might be a special "extra strong gravity" or somesuch, but you probably won't terraform to change gravity, or size. There will likely be an effect that changes a planet's size though, so you could make some specials or events or even a ship part that changes planet size if you wanted without much difficulty (ie. as a modder, not as a player in the unmodded game, unless the ability to do so was included in the unmodded game)...
So I think we are waiting for a bit of thundering and smiting from Aquitaine.
Keep in mind that just because you're keen, doesn't me Aq will be interested in reopening things for debate. And this has been discussed before... by persons including myself:
viewtopic.php?p=14723#14723

And at the time, it wasn't so fondly looked on:
viewtopic.php?p=14733#14733

Anyhoo, I'd still like to add a "Methane" planet type... but I don't see the point of "Arid" when we already have "Desert", nor "Iceball" when we have Tundra, and I don't really know what "Primordial" is supposed to mean.

Rapunzel
Pupating Mass
Posts: 99
Joined: Tue Apr 27, 2004 3:11 pm
Location: Germany

#26 Post by Rapunzel »

So then gravity "Terraforming" will propably be a building, like in MoO2. Would be fine as well, but then that is not in the Wheel and im happy :D
Dieser Text basiert ausschließlich auf frei erfundener Interpunktion und Orthographie. Jegliche Uebereinstimmungen mit geltenden Regelungen sind rein zufaellig und wurden nicht beabsichtigt.

herbert_vaucanson
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:47 am
Location: European peninsula

#27 Post by herbert_vaucanson »

Geoff the Medio wrote:Re: Gravity terraforming: Planets have a "size" and well as an environment, but I doubt there'll be any complicated system of gravity variations separate from size. [...]
So we get the usual "heavy gravity", "normal gravity" and "light gravity" stuff? i would be happy with that. What about mineral richness? Does it exists on a scale, or all the balls spin the same?
Geoff the Medio wrote:
So I think we are waiting for a bit of thundering and smiting from Aquitaine.
Keep in mind that just because you're keen, doesn't me Aq will be interested in reopening things for debate. [...]
Anyhoo, I'd still like to add a "Methane" planet type... but I don't see the point of "Arid" when we already have "Desert", nor "Iceball" when we have Tundra, and I don't really know what "Primordial" is supposed to mean.
I know, there might be no fiery hand, no convenient flat stone nearby. But what shall we do if not hope? :P

Happy you like the "Methanic" environment.

About "Arid" and "Iceball": they serve mostly to give a more gradual flavour to the wheel in the area which is likely to be crowded, allowing the "within two" rule without allowing unlikely environments to be suitable.
Arid has some liquid water and a thicker atmosphere than desert. So Arid could support native like like us, while in deserts it would me much more unlikely. This couples well with my idea of setting Desert as the ideal world for machines. The difference with tundra and iceball is very simple: besides being even colder, an iceball does not have much of an atmosphere...
So for instance, with "Arid" and "Iceball" in we could have "Humanoids" to like "Terran", find comfy "Ocean" and "Arid" and still accept "Desert" and "Tundra". But not liking one bit of "Barren" or "Iceball". Can you picture merry pic-nics on the Moon or Europa? At the same time, consider an "Insect" race loving Arid - kind of desert scorpions. They would like Terran and Desert as well, and still accept "Ocean" and even "Barren" - because of their exoscheleton, maybe. But Tundra would be too far away, too cold for them to live. Or think of an acquatic race: love Ocean, like Terran and Tundra, accept Arid (there is still some water around) and Iceball (cold, but damp :P ). But no way they get along with Desert or Methanic...

About "Primordial": in some sense, it is a symmetric to Arid for topological and gameplay resons. Between the temperature extremes there are two connections - the wheel is a ring! One goes through the "Oxigen-water" chemistry and it is a bit beefier, 'cause I imagined more races there. The other connection goes through the NH3-CH4-CO2-H2SO4 chemistry. For us this is hell, but some race/specie might really like it, and it seemed just right to give them enough space to like it there without tolerating also the other side. What I imagined as "Primordial" (I agree, the name is not really catchy) is a world like we expected Earth to be in the first phases of its geological evolution. Rather hot and acid with thick clouds, but cool enough to have a bit of liquid water - this is the difference with "Toxic". Then Swamp is even cooler and less acid, with a much higher presence of complex carbon-based molecules in a bath of water (the difference between "Swamp" and "Primordial"). As I wrote earlier, I imagine a race of "lizards" loving Swamp, liking Methanic and Primordial and tolerating Iceballs and Toxic. But for them Inferno is too hot :P and tundra starts to be to rich in free oxigen for them to survive.
- Well, what about this: a lot of empty space, colored balls spinning around, the occasional nifty exlosion, and some infestation here and there to give it the "lived in" feel?
- It shouldn't take more than a week... ok, I am in.

User avatar
Geoff the Medio
Programming, Design, Admin
Posts: 12692
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2003 1:33 am
Location: Munich

#28 Post by Geoff the Medio »

herbert_vaucanson wrote:So we get the usual "heavy gravity", "normal gravity" and "light gravity" stuff? i would be happy with that. What about mineral richness? Does it exists on a scale, or all the balls spin the same?
None of this is decided, as far as I know. A simple and effective way to deal with this sort of thing would be to make specials, called whatever we want (eg. "heavy gravity", "mineral rich") that give bonuses or penalties to various meters in appropriate contexts. Other ways are possible too.

herbert_vaucanson
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:47 am
Location: European peninsula

#29 Post by herbert_vaucanson »

Geoff the Medio wrote:
herbert_vaucanson wrote:So we get the usual "heavy gravity", "normal gravity" and "light gravity" stuff? i would be happy with that. What about mineral richness? Does it exists on a scale, or all the balls spin the same?
None of this is decided, as far as I know. A simple and effective way to deal with this sort of thing would be to make specials, called whatever we want (eg. "heavy gravity", "mineral rich") that give bonuses or penalties to various meters in appropriate contexts. Other ways are possible too.
Cool - a generalisable, extendable set of specials - with the eventual countermeasure or exploitation associable to a technology. I like it.

BtW, do you think my explanations for the extra environments make sense?
- Well, what about this: a lot of empty space, colored balls spinning around, the occasional nifty exlosion, and some infestation here and there to give it the "lived in" feel?
- It shouldn't take more than a week... ok, I am in.

herbert_vaucanson
Space Floater
Posts: 37
Joined: Fri Feb 18, 2005 10:47 am
Location: European peninsula

#30 Post by herbert_vaucanson »

Geoff the Medio wrote: [...] Anyhoo, I'd still like to add a "Methane" planet type... but I don't see the point of "Arid" when we already have "Desert", nor "Iceball" when we have Tundra, and I don't really know what "Primordial" is supposed to mean.
I have been giving it some thoughs, and your objections are quite reasonable. So my new streamlined proposal is:

Terran ----------.
... | ................. |
Desert ..........Ocean
... | ................. |
Barren ......... Iceball
... | ................. |
Radiated ....... Methanic
... | ................. |
Inferno ........ Swamp
... | ................. |
Toxic-------------'

with now (as in the current "stonified" version) only three levels of acceptability: optimal (native environment), acceptable (one step away) and hostile (two or more steps away). Altough this stricter rule limit somewhat the fun, imho.

Now I see insects like desert, machines like barren, humanoids and plants like terran, aquatics like ocean, lavamen like inferno, crystals like iceballs, lizards like swamps, energy beings like radiated, fungi like methanic, blob-shapechangers like toxic...

I would propose the gravity and mineral richness to be special as you said, but I would also make "Gaia" one of such specials - it does not make sense, imho, to have it as a floating, off-the-wheel, universal environment...
Moreover, some specials (like gaia) could be added or altered (like High-G).

I still wait opinions on my "gas giants and asteroids" proposal.
- Well, what about this: a lot of empty space, colored balls spinning around, the occasional nifty exlosion, and some infestation here and there to give it the "lived in" feel?
- It shouldn't take more than a week... ok, I am in.

Post Reply