EPTWeird planets in lore? - Page 6
| Forum Index > StarCraft 2 HotS |
|
Xcobidoo
Sweden1871 Posts
| ||
|
RavenLoud
Canada1100 Posts
The Earth once had uniform climate as well I believe... | ||
|
skipgamer
Australia701 Posts
| ||
|
ishboh
United States954 Posts
or maybe strong global winds on bel'shir keep the planet all pretty much the same temperature. or maybe there are multiple suns in the solar system or maybe it has an odd rotation relative to earth's rotation... | ||
|
nerak
Brazil256 Posts
On October 20 2011 13:43 skipgamer wrote: I don't like it... This game is pure fantasy, NOTHING from real physics should apply. Just enjoy the game for what it is and don't try to apply real-world knowledge to it. Ok, lets forget physics. Im thinking about something else. Why, when you land in Mar Sara, you simply land in "Mar Sara"? Why not somewhere in Mar Sara? The only planet that has got "places" is Aiur. You´ve got Antioch, Zion (was that it?), you´ve got the caves, you´ve got Overmind´s "crash site". Going to Aiur is not like going to Cincinatti, Ohio. Aiur is a huge planet, so there are many different places on it. In the case of Aiur, those places are not different so much because of biome or climate, but because of history, stuff that happened in that specific spot, not just "in Aiur". Now, if you look at the habitated (or former habitated) planets, they don´t have such diversity. That´s all Im saying. How is a planet like Shiloh habitated by 255 million people, but still have less political, economical and cultural diversity than a less-habitated real-world country? Btw, you´d guess that in some fringe worlds there´d be some planets with countries, right? Countries allied or enemy to each other, but still, different people living in the same planet. I don´t think that it´s crucial to lore. But lore does miss depth sometimes. If it feeled more real sometimes, with things like planets that acctually work as planets, that would be great. And there isnt even the need for this kind of "realism" in every single planet. Just some of them would be enough. | ||
|
Pax
United States175 Posts
On October 12 2011 00:27 FeyFey wrote: ummm why do you expect a jungle planet to have lots of water ? there are no oceans etc, there aren't even many clouds, that is clearly a sign of a planet with not alot of water. And one climatic zone is quiet common for a moon as they are pretty small. Also for a planet to have poles its necessary that the temperature at the poles is quiet low. There are various explanations, since this is mostly fiction. For example the planet could have a rotation that moves the poles really close to the equator etc. and the year is only 50 days long. So the planet get roasted on each point equally. But generally jungle planets don't have alot of water just like gaia class planets don't. So even though its cold green can cover the poles as there is landmass everywhere. Jungle planets do need lots of water. If a planet was completely covered in flora, it wouldn't be able to sustain that level of biomass for very long without immense bodies of water to evaporate moisture from, and thus make rain. | ||
|
MichaelDonovan
United States1453 Posts
On October 11 2011 23:37 Kralic wrote: I would ask this question at blizzcon to get their response. Interesting topic I must say, never put much thought into it. Sounds like a job for Red Shirt Man. | ||
|
Broesly
Romania157 Posts
On October 11 2011 14:07 nerak wrote: Yeah, but a planet cant be tropical, as it cant be equatorial, thats the point. If its a extra-hot planet, so hot its poles are as hot as Earth´s tropics, how hot will the Equator be? Of course, I gave that one idea, Bel´Shir could have kinda the same climate everywhere bacause volcans, blablabla. But what of Mar Sara? How is it hot and semi-arid everywhere? I does have seas, that does evaporate. Doesnt the rain falling concentrates anywhere? (for exemple, Earth´s rains are more common in Florida, Amazon, Congo, and not so common in Texas, Mongolia, Europe). The icy-poles problem still applies. If Mar Sara´s poles are warm, its Equator should be inhabitable. you make Europe sound like desert.... | ||
|
Spec
Taiwan931 Posts
| ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
*Mercury - has the same Shakuras-look throughout the planet (granted weird rotation/revolution halves) *Venus - has the same Volcanic Char-look throughout the planet *Mars - has the same "Mar" (intentional blizzard?) Sara wasteland look throughout the entire planet *Gas Giants all have relatively the same color configuration throughout themselves *Moons appear to follow this trend as well Earth, and planets having a variety of ecosystems appear to be the exception, not the rule. Thus, turning the idea that it's "weird" that all these planets are uniform in environments on it's head. Earth is weird, these mono-tileset planets are what appears to be the norm. Also, I'm not sure but isn't it possible for solar systems with more than one star (or maybe even one-star systems) to have planets with specific orbital/rotational patterns to be completely devoid of north-south temperature differences, or have them be negligible? This could be another way to justify the Earth-like planets like Bel'Shir (granted it's a moon I guess) having one uniform tileset. | ||
|
RHUmbra
United States34 Posts
| ||
|
Algol
Sweden9 Posts
On October 31 2011 15:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote: *Mercury - has the same Shakuras-look throughout the planet (granted weird rotation/revolution halves) *Venus - has the same Volcanic Char-look throughout the planet *Mars - has the same "Mar" (intentional blizzard?) Sara wasteland look throughout the entire planet *Gas Giants all have relatively the same color configuration throughout themselves *Moons appear to follow this trend as well Earth, and planets having a variety of ecosystems appear to be the exception, not the rule. Thus, turning the idea that it's "weird" that all these planets are uniform in environments on it's head. * Mercury - has very different temperatures at different places (mainly the side not facing the sun is much much cooler). The temperature difference is just not very visable in a rocky surface. * Venus - Has a very strong green house effect, and because of this ha almost the same temperature all over the planet. Even thou Venus has a very slow rotation it has very similar temperatures on the side facing the sun and the side facing away. * Mars - Has icy poles * Gas planets - The physics in gas planet temperature distribution is not very applicable to rocky planets * Moons usually do not have an atmosphere, and therefore are similar to Mercury in how the temperature is distributed The main reasons that you can see the differences in climate on different places on Earth are 1. Vegetation 2. Ice/water (since Earth's temperate is close to the freezing point of water, and water visually looks very different when frosen we can clearly see when/where the temperature drops below the freezing point) Rocks and ice looks very similar when in slightly different temperatures and humidity, vegetation and water/ice does not. However, I think the Bel'Shir climate could be explained with: - Thick atmosphere / strong green house effect - Fast rotation (with faster rotation the green house effect does not need to be as strong as on Venus to create the same homogeneous temperature) Overall thou, I believe that if we would ever find a planet with life, it would look as diverse as Earth. | ||
|
Krikkitone
United States1451 Posts
On October 31 2011 15:47 GGTeMpLaR wrote: Big problem with your theory is that you're making the assumption that Earth-like planets are the norm which have a varied diversity in terrains and landscapes. Look at every other planet in our solar system and you get a more accurate picture: *Mercury - has the same Shakuras-look throughout the planet (granted weird rotation/revolution halves) *Venus - has the same Volcanic Char-look throughout the planet *Mars - has the same "Mar" (intentional blizzard?) Sara wasteland look throughout the entire planet *Gas Giants all have relatively the same color configuration throughout themselves *Moons appear to follow this trend as well Earth, and planets having a variety of ecosystems appear to be the exception, not the rule. Thus, turning the idea that it's "weird" that all these planets are uniform in environments on it's head. Earth is weird, these mono-tileset planets are what appears to be the norm. Also, I'm not sure but isn't it possible for solar systems with more than one star (or maybe even one-star systems) to have planets with specific orbital/rotational patterns to be completely devoid of north-south temperature differences, or have them be negligible? This could be another way to justify the Earth-like planets like Bel'Shir (granted it's a moon I guess) having one uniform tileset. All of those planets are totally lifeless. AND they still all have tremendous variation... all of them have icy poles (except mercury) they all have areas that are more rocky and areas that are more sandy/smooth. If there was some form of life that could survive on Mercury then you would have different forms of it surviving in different parts of Mercury. | ||
|
nerak
Brazil256 Posts
+ Show Spoiler + On October 12 2011 01:05 nerak wrote: Yes, but that´s also a point, a storytelling issue. Aliens come down to Earth. Does the interesting stuff that thay´ve come to check have to be ALWAYS in the seas? There´s never anything interesting for them to look for in Antarctica, in forests, deserts, cities? Why can not the misterious crystal "miscellanium" be gathered in the frozen part of the arid planet Dry? Why can´t an important war happen in the desert barrens of the "jungle world"? It may seem petty for a game, but not so much for lore. Think of the habitated (or former habitated) planets: didn´t Mar Sara had important cities in the swampish areas? If it had some or most of the planet inhabitable (poles/equator/stormy areas/whatever), what would keep Terrans from mining and stabilishing colonies there, if they colonized Braxis (described by Blizzard as "frozen hell")? Moria, Umoja and formerly Tarsonis have/had billions of people. I assume its culture and economics would have great diversity, including richer/poorer zones, accents, political struggles? That´s something I´d like to see in the novels, how each planet´s own aspects would affect everyday people´s life. I miss topology aspects too. Life isnt all about having or not having ice and trees  Topology afects culture, economy - and war. How mountains, crazy jungles, rivers, affect high tech wars? (I just thought maybe its and extra reason why Raynor was need in Char; he not only knew the Zerg, he was the only surviving Terran commander that have fought on Char´s surface)That´s what´s my nerd "complain"´s about. Planets are cooler when they are as big as planets, not towns. I´ll give some points for Aiur thou. It has both "jungle" and "caves". That´s cool. Aiur is also the planet with the most locations, ie, the most vivid and detailed one. The problem isn´t physics. Yes, some planets are not diverse at all. Some planets have a single "tileset". But must, if not as diverse as Earth, are much more diverse than a small country. Planets in Starcraft look like cities sometimes. Another quote from myself from page 4Acorddig to Blizzard, Mar Sara have only uplands, mountains, wastelands and deserts (source). But that´s not even the point. The point is: everytime we´re in a mission in Mar Sara (or any other planet), its like we´re going to the same place. And planets are huge. Its not only about how many different climates and biomes a planet can have. I never have the feeling that planets are really really huge. For example, planets (except Mar Sara) are always owned by only one faction. But an Earth-sized planet can be habitated by 2, 3 or 4 factions, even if they´re in war on each other, and there would be still plenty of room. I never see things like "the northern continent is all ours, but in the last 8 years we couldn't push those KM's out of the archipelagos". I hope this will explain things better. Its my fault that I haven´t made myself clear before. | ||
|
GGTeMpLaR
United States7226 Posts
On November 01 2011 04:34 Krikkitone wrote: All of those planets are totally lifeless. AND they still all have tremendous variation... all of them have icy poles (except mercury) they all have areas that are more rocky and areas that are more sandy/smooth. If there was some form of life that could survive on Mercury then you would have different forms of it surviving in different parts of Mercury. The fact that they're lifeless right now doesn't really mean anything, I'm sure if we had Terran technology from SC2 they would all be colonized right now. "Tremendous variation" is an overstatement as well, they might have rocky - smooth areas but that exists within a single tileset. They have a uniform tileset throughout. On October 31 2011 17:27 Algol wrote: * Mercury - has very different temperatures at different places (mainly the side not facing the sun is much much cooler). The temperature difference is just not very visable in a rocky surface. * Venus - Has a very strong green house effect, and because of this ha almost the same temperature all over the planet. Even thou Venus has a very slow rotation it has very similar temperatures on the side facing the sun and the side facing away. * Mars - Has icy poles * Gas planets - The physics in gas planet temperature distribution is not very applicable to rocky planets * Moons usually do not have an atmosphere, and therefore are similar to Mercury in how the temperature is distributed The main reasons that you can see the differences in climate on different places on Earth are 1. Vegetation 2. Ice/water (since Earth's temperate is close to the freezing point of water, and water visually looks very different when frosen we can clearly see when/where the temperature drops below the freezing point) Rocks and ice looks very similar when in slightly different temperatures and humidity, vegetation and water/ice does not. However, I think the Bel'Shir climate could be explained with: - Thick atmosphere / strong green house effect - Fast rotation (with faster rotation the green house effect does not need to be as strong as on Venus to create the same homogeneous temperature) Overall thou, I believe that if we would ever find a planet with life, it would look as diverse as Earth. Mercury - Different temperatures due to odd rotation/revolution as I mentioned doesn't change the fact that Mecury has a uniform tileset. Venus - You agree here Moons - You go back to different temperatures, but the moons we know of all have a single uniform tileset regardless of temperature (europa, io, our moon, etc etc etc) Mars - Yes mars has ice caps, but you're forgetting that in the SCBW snow tileset, dirt and grass also existed. It might have icecaps, but the rest of the planet is relatively uniform. It can still be a single tileset. The point is, most planets are not going to naturally support life (as far as we know from current scientific evidence). That does not mean that given proper Terran technology, these planets incapable of supporting life could not be colonized. Earth is the exception, deserts/jungles/snow/plains. You could argue that it's more of a tileset in itself as a combination of tilesets | ||
|
Amel
Canada14 Posts
| ||
|
Galleon.frigate
Canada721 Posts
| ||
|
Shrewmy
Australia199 Posts
| ||
|
GizmoPT
Portugal3040 Posts
| ||
|
Broodie
Canada832 Posts
maybe the natural life absorbs a toxin found in the dirt and not just water, Binary stars, Radiation eating life from binary ejecting fast matter maybe its so old that each layer down to the mantle is loaded with fertilizing tree carcasses from eons on stability? perhaps it has no core and is a chunk of dirt formed to a ball and receives water from ice volcanos from a nearby moon that is blocked completely from light and warmth of its parent planet?? I dunno, seems feasible in a sci fi way to me, and since they have no written explaination of the jungles , it's easy to draw a million conclusions and less if you involve the current direct knowledge of life which imo is quite miniscule | ||
| ||
