Have anyone wondered that planets in lore are so... wrong?
I´ll take Bel'Shir as the ultimate exemple. It is a "jungle planet". Its even all covered in green.
But how can that be that the only enviroment of a planet is a jungle? Shouldnt a planet with so much water have at least icy poles?
And of course, there could be a rational explanation, there can always be. For exemple: Bel'Shir have intense and countinuous vulcanic activity, specially in the poles. That and its unique atmosphere keeps all the planet suitalbe for rain forests, although its not the SAME rainforest everywhere.
Now its "fixed", it makes sense right? But they cant just use the same excuse for all the planets... like all the planets have some reason to have the same climate, soil and biosphere everywhere.
What do you guys think?
EDIT: Bel'Shir is a moon XD Complains still applie.
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.
On October 11 2011 14:25 -NegativeZero- wrote: Because sci-fi writers are lazy, especially for games where everyone mostly just cares about the gameplay.
Nice, great example. What's another good question is how a planet like Char, all volcanic, could have an atmosphere to support life. One that we can breathe. It would be mostly sulfur oxides and other gnarly shit. Not only that, but there is no other form of life. Not a bush or a blade of grass or a rabbit, wtf do the Zerg live on? Rocks? Canibalism? I won't even get into the paradoxes that creates.
what annoys me is that they seem to be able to breath fine with their helmet visors up, on Char / any other volcanic planet. with all the volcanic activity going on on Char, i'm sure the atmosphere is filled with poisonous gases.
On October 11 2011 14:08 [UNC]oRe.saMa wrote: You assume there is only one sun. Perhaps it's a binary (or more!) system.
If there where 2 suns then in all likely hood the 2 suns and all the planets would be pulled into the same plane by gravity and thus the poles would still be colder so a binary system doesn't really help.
Obviously the planet would still be hotter than a planet heated from just 1 side by an equally powerful sun. But it's poles would still be a lot colder than the equator.
Agree with topic. I had the same thoughts. Ice planet, Jungle Planet, Desert Planet, Volcanic Planet... While Earth has all of these tilesets in itself...
On October 11 2011 19:15 EatCrow wrote: Earth had jungles in the south pole during some time in the dinosaur era.
So excited, my first TL post :D
Actually, not in the south pole, but in the antarctic continent, which in that era was at south tropical latitudes.
Only after some MoY it reached south pole due to tectonic movement.
About Bel'shir, come on, Earth was a jungle planet on the Carboniferous period, with high humid, hot climate and lot of humidity around the whole planet due to glass house effect. Only after the growing plant life become consuming the carbon dioxide on the air, could the fish come out of water.
After that, since all landmasses were melted in one giant supercontinent, most of the earth became a desert world, without nearly any ice on poles due to oceanic currents.
Earth climate as we know it today is what it is because of oceanic currents and landmass distribution (also sun cycles and Earth axis cycles). Give earth some more million years and you won't recognice the climate.
Io (Jupiter`s moon) is a volcanic planet. Europa (another Jupiter moon) is an ice world, like many other ice moons. Mars is a desert planet Venus is a volcanic (supposed), hot planet.
Also, zerg live thanks to their buildings metabolizing minerals and vespene into "food" Also creep absorb any kind of soil nutrients and give it to buildings, so they can live wherever they want.
Still, you´d freeze in there. And the poles have not the same climate of the equator. Which´s the point.
Another thing, a "desert planet" isnt hard to happen really. Its just no water (so no ice) + debris everywhere (so everything looks the same). Problem is, if its a jungle planet, theres a lot of water. And this water should behave diferently in diferent climates (and ANY planet has more than one climate, even gas giants).
Mar Sara is problem too. It may seem that its ok, but its not; as it isnt a desert planet, its a semi-arid biome, like Palestin, parts of Asia and Mexico. There is wildlife and above all, there is water/humidity. Mar Sare has oceans. Ocenas causes rains - somewhere. And the rain doesnt happen evenly in everyplaces.
That happens to be Pangeas case. We had oceans, maybe no icy poles. but the inner Pangea (deserts) was different from seashore Pangea (marshes).
Not to mention other geographical aspects, like planalts, mountain chains, etc, that affect atmosphere and biosphere.
You shouldn't dive too deep into issues like this. If your investigations show that Blizzard has made obvious errors, you might actually hurt their feelings!
You are only considering the topological aspects of that planet. However consider the biological aspect. A plant or tree on Bel'shir could have higher tolerance levels of heat and cold. Meaning that everything would be covered in green
On October 11 2011 23:07 KingPwny wrote: You are only considering the topological aspects of that planet. However consider the biological aspect. A plant or tree on Bel'shir could have higher tolerance levels of heat and cold. Meaning that everything would be covered in green
Deserts are defined by little to no precipitation. You can have an Ice Desert so long as it doesn't snow, rain, hail, etc. A prime example on earth are the poles. Both have Ice since it is so cold but neither receive much precipitation also due to the extreme cold.
On October 11 2011 23:07 KingPwny wrote: You are only considering the topological aspects of that planet. However consider the biological aspect. A plant or tree on Bel'shir could have higher tolerance levels of heat and cold. Meaning that everything would be covered in green
Agree, nobody though about that the jungle could be made of different species depending on the geographic region. But it will be a jungle anyway.
Well played sir.
Also, I think we are being too itchy with the "mono climate" topic. After all, most astronomers say Earth is an ocean world in universal standards, even if we have like 25% of land mass. So a desert planet could have like 75% of desert/arid regions and 25% sea (Mar sara) and still being labeled as "desert planet"
Same with ice planets (Hoth being the most famous one) It is supposed to be a snowball, but only ecuator is "warm" enough to support life. It was hinted than other latitudes are just too cold to live there, so climate is variable.
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.
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.
Lol what.
How can a planet support plants across its entire surface and not have much water?
Also the poles of a planet, by definition, cannot be "really close to the equator". The poles are defined as the points where the axis of rotation meets the surface, and the equator is the line equidistant from those two points.
Unless you're talking about magnetic poles, but I'm not sure they have much effect on climate.
Also the poles of a planet, by definition, cannot be "really close to the equator". The poles are defined as the points where the axis of rotation meets the surface, and the equator is the line equidistant from those two points.
Unless you're talking about magnetic poles, but I'm not sure they have much effect on climate.
I think he meant a planet with horizontal rotation axis, like Uranus, instead of a "standard" one, like Earth. If orbit is small enough (i.e. moon orbiting a giant planet) all surface in the moon will receive the same amount of heat from the main star/ star system, given enough time.
Also, a planet could be humid and doesn't have seas. It depends on atmosphere pressure and heat, so virtually you could have a foggy, jungle world without seas, but with near water saturation atmosphere.
Or land composition is capable of absorbing high amounts of water so you have a "sponge" planet where there is no sea, but lot of water for plants. Water could be absorbed, being heated on the mantle by molten rock and then "breathed" in geysers to the atmosphere. A totally different water cycle, depending on ambient conditions.
On October 11 2011 23:07 KingPwny wrote: You are only considering the topological aspects of that planet. However consider the biological aspect. A plant or tree on Bel'shir could have higher tolerance levels of heat and cold. Meaning that everything would be covered in green
Agree, nobody though about that the jungle could be made of different species depending on the geographic region. But it will be a jungle anyway.
Well played sir.
Also, I think we are being too itchy with the "mono climate" topic. After all, most astronomers say Earth is an ocean world in universal standards, even if we have like 25% of land mass. So a desert planet could have like 75% of desert/arid regions and 25% sea (Mar sara) and still being labeled as "desert planet"
Same with ice planets (Hoth being the most famous one) It is supposed to be a snowball, but only ecuator is "warm" enough to support life. It was hinted than other latitudes are just too cold to live there, so climate is variable.
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.
On October 11 2011 13:34 nerak wrote: Have anyone wondered that planets in lore are so... wrong?
I´ll take Bel'Shir as the ultimate exemple. It is a "jungle planet". Its even all covered in green.
But how can that be that the only enviroment of a planet is a jungle? Shouldnt a planet with so much water have at least icy poles?
And of course, there could be a rational explanation, there can always be. For exemple: Bel'Shir have intense and countinuous vulcanic activity, specially in the poles. That and its unique atmosphere keeps all the planet suitalbe for rain forests, although its not the SAME rainforest everywhere.
Now its "fixed", it makes sense right? But they cant just use the same excuse for all the planets... like all the planets have some reason to have the same climate, soil and biosphere everywhere.
What do you guys think?
EDIT: Bel'Shir is a moon XD Complains still applie.
In Starcraft, there are many, many contradictions with our physical laws.
In the game, planets act as towns or world zones. As in most SF universes, planets often have just one great feature, they are desert planets or water planets or jungle planets or whatever.
On October 11 2011 14:25 -NegativeZero- wrote: Because sci-fi writers are lazy, especially for games where everyone mostly just cares about the gameplay.
Nice, great example. What's another good question is how a planet like Char, all volcanic, could have an atmosphere to support life. One that we can breathe. It would be mostly sulfur oxides and other gnarly shit. Not only that, but there is no other form of life. Not a bush or a blade of grass or a rabbit, wtf do the Zerg live on? Rocks? Canibalism? I won't even get into the paradoxes that creates.
I always thought that the zerg would have to use some sort of chemosythesis like the bacteria that live in undersea vents on earth, or perhaps even derive energy directly from the volcanic heat in the core. This would actually provide a good lore explaination for why the overmind choose to settle on Char, it could be used as a natural geothermal power source.
The worst offender of unlikely environments is Korhal imo. The planet is blasted into a radioactive desert, then in just four years between BW and SC2 the planet is supposed to be covered 100% in a city that looks as dense as than New York city? Where did all those people come from? how did an entire global city be built in just four years?
This would actually provide a good lore explaination for why the overmind choose to settle on Char, it could be used as a natural geothermal power source.
The Overmind did not 'choose' to 'settle' on char. When it was created as a control mechanism by the Xel'Naga, the Zerg were still confined to the planet Char, where the original zerg was mutated from the indiginous larva-like species.
To the subject. Planets and moons could have a much shorter 'yearspan' than earth, making the planet tilt so often that the temperature has no time to gradually go colder on each pole. This would result in an almost completely monogenous temperature globally.
This would actually provide a good lore explaination for why the overmind choose to settle on Char, it could be used as a natural geothermal power source.
The Overmind did not 'choose' to 'settle' on char. When it was created as a control mechanism by the Xel'Naga, the Zerg were still confined to the planet Char, where the original zerg was mutated from the indiginous larva-like species.
Wrong, the Zerg were born on Zerus. Char was just their staging area in the Koprulu Sector from no later than the time Kerrigan was captured.
On October 11 2011 14:25 -NegativeZero- wrote: Because sci-fi writers are lazy, especially for games where everyone mostly just cares about the gameplay.
Nice, great example. What's another good question is how a planet like Char, all volcanic, could have an atmosphere to support life. One that we can breathe. It would be mostly sulfur oxides and other gnarly shit. Not only that, but there is no other form of life. Not a bush or a blade of grass or a rabbit, wtf do the Zerg live on? Rocks? Canibalism? I won't even get into the paradoxes that creates.
I always thought that the zerg would have to use some sort of chemosythesis like the bacteria that live in undersea vents on earth, or perhaps even derive energy directly from the volcanic heat in the core. This would actually provide a good lore explaination for why the overmind choose to settle on Char, it could be used as a natural geothermal power source.
The worst offender of unlikely environments is Korhal imo. The planet is blasted into a radioactive desert, then in just four years between BW and SC2 the planet is supposed to be covered 100% in a city that looks as dense as than New York city? Where did all those people come from? how did an entire global city be built in just four years?
Wasn't there already buildings on Korhal in SC1? I remeber at the end of the original terran campagin with mengsk's properganda speech you got to see buildings (Like, massive government ones, not wasteland huts) on korhal. I know you got to see the outskirts of the main city of korhal in a couple of BW missions. IDK, could be wrong. Im pretty sure it was korhal thou.
This would actually provide a good lore explaination for why the overmind choose to settle on Char, it could be used as a natural geothermal power source.
The Overmind did not 'choose' to 'settle' on char. When it was created as a control mechanism by the Xel'Naga, the Zerg were still confined to the planet Char, where the original zerg was mutated from the indiginous larva-like species.
Wrong, the Zerg were born on Zerus. Char was just their staging area in the Koprulu Sector from no later than the time Kerrigan was captured.
Thanks for fixing that, I always thought that Zerus was the dutch translation of the word Char as it appeared in my original Starcraft guide (oh the good old days of printed books :D).
Edit: Char and Zerus are very alike though as they are both volcanic worlds, which is also a probable reason for the Overmind to take a liking into Char.
Bel'Shir is located in an ex-dualstarsystem, one star exploded and made a huge nebula composed of Na and Fe. The Fe-Fog in the system distributes the heat from the remaining star rather eaqually around the planet. The Na-Fog breaks the light and is responsible for the green color you can cleary see in the space around the planet on the picture.
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.
Lol what.
How can a planet support plants across its entire surface and not have much water?
Also the poles of a planet, by definition, cannot be "really close to the equator". The poles are defined as the points where the axis of rotation meets the surface, and the equator is the line equidistant from those two points.
Unless you're talking about magnetic poles, but I'm not sure they have much effect on climate.
actually he does raise a valid point in a way, though he doesn't actually say it.
Who's to say those plants haven't evolved in such a way that they just don't require water?
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.
Wow.
Rain is not so common in "Europe"?
I wholeheartedly invite you to come and visit the UK, the Netherlands, in fact, any non-Mediterranean part of Europe.
With your renewed knowledge of global climate, perhaps everything makes sense!
Finally, who says Earth isn't a weird exception with such a wide variety of climates and eco-zones. Potentially it's solely due to my lack of knowledge, but even the other planets in our solar system seem to be more monotonous.
And this.
On October 12 2011 12:30 Spessi wrote: Who's to say those plants haven't evolved in such a way that they just don't require water?
Bel'Shir is located in an ex-dualstarsystem, one star exploded and made a huge nebula composed of Na and Fe.
Binary starsystems cannot have planets.
Sadly, many science fiction universes do feature binary star systems with planets, because they like to show two suns at the horizon.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. There are some ex solar planets discovered which are in binary systems. Most of the are super giant gas planets which orbit too close of the dual star gravity center, but there could be earth like planets.
Of course seasons will be different from those on Earth, but it is possible.
On October 11 2011 14:10 LAN-f34r wrote: Small planets won't have much difference between poles and equator.
I kinda think it does, I mean, the slight tilt in the earths planet makes it that its 30*C in the summer and -30*C in the winter for me. Not like I'm that close to the pole either.
So you can't accept a 100% pure jungle planet, but you have no problems with the two alien species in the game, of which one consists of insects who can travel through space, and the other has individuals capable of conjuring lightning storm only using willpower, which in turn is capable of killing intergalactic ships?
On October 13 2011 00:54 McNulty wrote: So you can't accept a 100% pure jungle planet, but you have no problems with the two alien species in the game, of which one consists of insects who can travel through space, and the other has individuals capable of conjuring lightning storm only using willpower, which in turn is capable of killing intergalactic ships?
Those are two completely different levels of suspending disbelief.
It's one thing to immerse yourself in an universe with aliens with strange powers, and another to maintain that immersion when you're hit in the face by planets that are a result of cheap procedural noise generator.
I don't really care much about the lore and immersion in Starcraft obviously, but the OP makes a fair point. Those splash screens are incredibly sloppy and stand out as such.
PS. It's not just the planets, it's also the space around them that's completely nonsensical.
Bel'Shir is located in an ex-dualstarsystem, one star exploded and made a huge nebula composed of Na and Fe. The Fe-Fog in the system distributes the heat from the remaining star rather eaqually around the planet. The Na-Fog breaks the light and is responsible for the green color you can cleary see in the space around the planet on the picture.
You sir, know too much about SC lore Nicely explained.
I always thought that the zerg would have to use some sort of chemosythesis like the bacteria that live in undersea vents on earth, or perhaps even derive energy directly from the volcanic heat in the core. This would actually provide a good lore explaination for why the overmind choose to settle on Char, it could be used as a natural geothermal power source.
I can't remember if it was in the SC1 manual or another piece of lore, but it is Blizzard Official (TM) that the Zerg get sustenance from the creep.
The worst offender of unlikely environments is Korhal imo. The planet is blasted into a radioactive desert, then in just four years between BW and SC2 the planet is supposed to be covered 100% in a city that looks as dense as than New York city? Where did all those people come from? how did an entire global city be built in just four years?
Is Korhal in lore supposed to be a city-planet?
I thought that Korhal was the capital city of the planet Korhal, and it was mostly the capital city, not the entire planet, that got glassed. And then the capital was rebuilt, possibly in another location, and named Augustgrad. Maybe I'm wrong I can't really remember exactly what the SC1 manual said.
But even if the Confederates made the whole planet glow in the dark, unless they used nuclear weapons specifically designed to create massive fallout that would last a long, long time, within several months to a year the areas nuked would be inhabitable again. Hiroshima and Nagasaki were bombed with devices that were primitive and very dirty as to the fallout, amount of radioactivity released, etc, and they were "safely" inhabitable not long after the bombings... if you consider greatly higher risk of various cancers "safe." But you wouldn't fall over and die on the spot from radiation poisoning.
Surely in the 25th century the Terrans would possess some kind of super-advanced neutron-type bomb that would do a lot of damage without leaving behind much fallout.
I like to compare these monotonous planets to Azeroth, which is a fruitcake as far as climates go. almost completely senseless as far as which climates are where, but hey that was a world designed by titans right? Anyway, with blizzard making as much money as they are, it would really be nice to see them devote more to the science of science fiction and making planets more realistic would help. I feel like it would give the series more longevity if they did.
On October 11 2011 14:25 -NegativeZero- wrote: Because sci-fi writers are lazy, especially for games where everyone mostly just cares about the gameplay.
On October 13 2011 04:58 SolidZeal wrote: I like to compare these monotonous planets to Azeroth, which is a fruitcake as far as climates go. almost completely senseless as far as which climates are where, but hey that was a world designed by titans right? Anyway, with blizzard making as much money as they are, it would really be nice to see them devote more to the science of science fiction and making planets more realistic would help. I feel like it would give the series more longevity if they did.
Yeah... Azeroth early designs made far more sense (because not the whole world was know), but in World of Warcraft it's pretty much fucked up. Blizz should have cared more...
On October 13 2011 00:54 McNulty wrote: So you can't accept a 100% pure jungle planet, but you have no problems with the two alien species in the game, of which one consists of insects who can travel through space, and the other has individuals capable of conjuring lightning storm only using willpower, which in turn is capable of killing intergalactic ships?
Those are two completely different levels of suspending disbelief.
It's one thing to immerse yourself in an universe with aliens with strange powers, and another to maintain that immersion when you're hit in the face by planets that are a result of cheap procedural noise generator.
I don't really care much about the lore and immersion in Starcraft obviously, but the OP makes a fair point. Those splash screens are incredibly sloppy and stand out as such.
PS. It's not just the planets, it's also the space around them that's completely nonsensical.
I don't really understand your argument... Basically you are saying on one hand, stuff should make sense and be authentic and obey the laws of physics, while on the other hand there should be magic and teleportation 'n shit?
Bel'Shir is located in an ex-dualstarsystem, one star exploded and made a huge nebula composed of Na and Fe.
Binary starsystems cannot have planets.
Sadly, many science fiction universes do feature binary star systems with planets, because they like to show two suns at the horizon.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. There are some ex solar planets discovered which are in binary systems. Most of the are super giant gas planets which orbit too close of the dual star gravity center, but there could be earth like planets.
Of course seasons will be different from those on Earth, but it is possible.
Well, stable orbits do exist either very close to one of the components of the binary system or sufficiently distant from a tight binary.
On October 13 2011 00:54 McNulty wrote: So you can't accept a 100% pure jungle planet, but you have no problems with the two alien species in the game, of which one consists of insects who can travel through space, and the other has individuals capable of conjuring lightning storm only using willpower, which in turn is capable of killing intergalactic ships?
Those are two completely different levels of suspending disbelief.
It's one thing to immerse yourself in an universe with aliens with strange powers, and another to maintain that immersion when you're hit in the face by planets that are a result of cheap procedural noise generator.
I don't really care much about the lore and immersion in Starcraft obviously, but the OP makes a fair point. Those splash screens are incredibly sloppy and stand out as such.
PS. It's not just the planets, it's also the space around them that's completely nonsensical.
I don't really understand your argument... Basically you are saying on one hand, stuff should make sense and be authentic and obey the laws of physics, while on the other hand there should be magic and teleportation 'n shit?
Unfortunately, that is the way physics is used by most modern "science" fiction authors. Some of the classic science fiction authors at least tried to make sense scientifically.
Bel'Shir is located in an ex-dualstarsystem, one star exploded and made a huge nebula composed of Na and Fe.
Binary starsystems cannot have planets.
Sadly, many science fiction universes do feature binary star systems with planets, because they like to show two suns at the horizon.
I'm sorry but you are wrong. There are some ex solar planets discovered which are in binary systems. Most of the are super giant gas planets which orbit too close of the dual star gravity center, but there could be earth like planets.
Of course seasons will be different from those on Earth, but it is possible.
Well, stable orbits do exist either very close to one of the components of the binary system or sufficiently distant from a tight binary.
Yeah, I found one here. Saturn-sized planet orbiting a tight binary about 3/4 AU out from the barycenter.
I can't remember if it was in the SC1 manual or another piece of lore, but it is Blizzard Official (TM) that the Zerg get sustenance from the creep.
I believe this to be the case yes, this is why zerg buildings take damage if the creep receeds from below them.
however, this begs the question: where do the creep get its energy?
and one semi-logical explanation would be that the creep is a kind of moss that grows extremely rapidly, but in a controlled fashion (which prevents it from over-growing), and survives from the minerals, carbondioxide and sunlight it recieves.
Now here is one question I must post: The zerg are organic, right? And I believe that they have a circulatory system similar to ours, which would explain why they bleed. So this begs the question; Why can the zerg survive in outer space? The 02 (Or whatever gas they are using to produce metabolic energy) should expand inside the blood vessels and cause them to burst due to the lack of exterior pressure.
I wholeheartedly invite you to come and visit the UK, the Netherlands, in fact, any non-Mediterranean part of Europe.
Europe isn't rainy compared to where I live in. Sorry for being such an ethnocentric dick
But its a good example of what I mean: "Europe" in average is "dry" by my standards, but there are places where there is more rain. In a similar way, even in a low-humidity planets there may be high-humidity areas (and vice-versa).
On October 13 2011 00:54 McNulty wrote: So you can't accept a 100% pure jungle planet, but you have no problems with the two alien species in the game, of which one consists of insects who can travel through space, and the other has individuals capable of conjuring lightning storm only using willpower, which in turn is capable of killing intergalactic ships?
Those are two completely different levels of suspending disbelief.
It's one thing to immerse yourself in an universe with aliens with strange powers, and another to maintain that immersion when you're hit in the face by planets that are a result of cheap procedural noise generator.
I don't really care much about the lore and immersion in Starcraft obviously, but the OP makes a fair point. Those splash screens are incredibly sloppy and stand out as such.
PS. It's not just the planets, it's also the space around them that's completely nonsensical.
I can accept a 100% jungle planet when its like "WTF, look, its a 100% jungle planet! How is that even possible". As it is with psionic storms and space bugs. Protoss psionism is written as something dreadful, Zerg adaptability make them even scarier, because those things are not seem as "normal".
But climate and science arent even the biggest deal. The deal is about verisimilitude and, above all, storytelling. Read my last post, I explain it better there.
On October 11 2011 23:07 KingPwny wrote: You are only considering the topological aspects of that planet. However consider the biological aspect. A plant or tree on Bel'shir could have higher tolerance levels of heat and cold. Meaning that everything would be covered in green
Agree, nobody though about that the jungle could be made of different species depending on the geographic region. But it will be a jungle anyway.
Well played sir.
Also, I think we are being too itchy with the "mono climate" topic. After all, most astronomers say Earth is an ocean world in universal standards, even if we have like 25% of land mass. So a desert planet could have like 75% of desert/arid regions and 25% sea (Mar sara) and still being labeled as "desert planet"
Same with ice planets (Hoth being the most famous one) It is supposed to be a snowball, but only ecuator is "warm" enough to support life. It was hinted than other latitudes are just too cold to live there, so climate is variable.
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.
TL; DR: Giving personality, realism/verisimilitude, politics to planets, remembering how big a planet is, its not just flavor, its about giving the "amaze" feeling that sci-fi is about, and above all its about giving "life" to a setting.
On October 11 2011 13:34 nerak wrote: Have anyone wondered that planets in lore are so... wrong?
I´ll take Bel'Shir as the ultimate exemple. It is a "jungle planet". Its even all covered in green.
But how can that be that the only enviroment of a planet is a jungle? Shouldnt a planet with so much water have at least icy poles?
And of course, there could be a rational explanation, there can always be. For exemple: Bel'Shir have intense and countinuous vulcanic activity, specially in the poles. That and its unique atmosphere keeps all the planet suitalbe for rain forests, although its not the SAME rainforest everywhere.
Now its "fixed", it makes sense right? But they cant just use the same excuse for all the planets... like all the planets have some reason to have the same climate, soil and biosphere everywhere.
What do you guys think?
EDIT: Bel'Shir is a moon XD Complains still applie.
They say it's a jungle planet, not that it's 100% jungle.
You haven't seen the other side of the planet. Also I think I see shades between green and blue.
On October 13 2011 15:24 SwitchAUS wrote: Because sci-fi is all about realism ^.^
Sci-fi´s about wonder. Too much science hurts wonder, but too little verisimilitude (not too little science) hurts wonder too.
You know the "a wizard did it" excuse? Well, everything weird abour SC, we can say a Xel´Naga did it. But its cooler if planets have life.
Aiur is a good example. It haves not only jungle, but also caves. It haves (had ) a lot of important locations. And its locations have history, things that happened in some specific spot, not just"in Aiur".
I think that too much sci-fi can ruin fun, but inverisimisilute. while a little of it really doesnt hurt gameplay, makes lore seem dumb.
I think I pointed it better in the last post I did.
actually I don't expect any logic in this regard after .50 cal shells dropping out of 8-mm railguns in the cinematics. oh wait what am I talking about? Nova walked in open space without a hermetic spacesuit. and banshee is a space helicopter with three rotors. no, there is no scientific solidity in the lore whatsoever.
I'm pretty sure we haven't explored planets in other solar systems yet so we can't be sure what types there are. At this point we have the planets in our solar system (and Mars is the only one we have literally even scratched the surface on). Like other posters said, different 'suns, multiple 'suns', moon orbits, multiple moons and multiple other reasons could, theoretically, explain these things.
One solution to the colder-at-the poles problem is a thick ozone layer and a far away sun.
If the sun is far away and the atmosphere generates a powerful greenhouse effect, the temperature difference between poles and equator will be negligible
On October 14 2011 03:14 joyeaux wrote: One solution to the colder-at-the poles problem is a thick ozone layer and a far away sun.
If the sun is far away and the atmosphere generates a powerful greenhouse effect, the temperature difference between poles and equator will be negligible
That might solve temperature, but if we assume these plants use photosynthesis then they will need light too, and the light levels are going to be quite different at the poles compared to the equator.
Of course, you can invent almost any psuedoscientific explanation to explain away just about anything. Realistically though a planet like Belshir is very unlikely. But this is a game where Winged creatures somehow navigate space, so I wouldn't worry too much.
On October 14 2011 03:14 joyeaux wrote: One solution to the colder-at-the poles problem is a thick ozone layer and a far away sun.
If the sun is far away and the atmosphere generates a powerful greenhouse effect, the temperature difference between poles and equator will be negligible
That might solve temperature, but if we assume these plants use photosynthesis then they will need light too, and the light levels are going to be quite different at the poles compared to the equator.
Of course, you can invent almost any psuedoscientific explanation to explain away just about anything. Realistically though a planet like Belshir is very unlikely. But this is a game where Winged creatures somehow navigate space, so I wouldn't worry too much.
what if the atmosphere was diffusing the light? something in the air scatters the light all around so everywhere gets light evenly.
Bel'Shir is not entirely jungle... it has beaches!
Mar Sara.. I don't recall a campaign mission "map out the entire planet of Mar Sara" - and without that, how can you make sweeping generalisations about the entire planet based solely on a few key locations you have seen or read about?
But enough nitpicking. If the question is why the planets are like this, it's because: it can make epic Sci Fi.
There are two types of sci fi: ones where all the planets are kinda like Earth (maybe with some twist), and ones where all the planets are totally different and crazy. Each is valid, but you cannot mix those styles. And for videogames in particular, I daresay a campaign where you explored subtle climate variations on multiple Earthlike planets simply less visually engaging.
Is the gigantic-single-biome planet an example of "lazy" sci-fi? Maybe sometimes. But then sometimes it's freaking Dune.
On October 12 2011 17:06 xtruder wrote: Someone bring this up during Blizzcon so we can have a Red Shirt Guy for SC lore:
We need more red-shirt guys. Because if the universe creators just do what they want without keeping it consistent, the franchise looses its appeal. Also, regarding to this thread: An SF universe which has much in common with the real universe just feels better. We already have to accept travel faster than light and psionic powers. While it is possible to accept this, having very strange planets is quite hard to accept.
This sounds silly – but do you remember Superman? We can accept his über powers but we still ask why no-one in his universe can tell Kent Clark apart from Superman.
On October 13 2011 15:24 SwitchAUS wrote: Because sci-fi is all about realism ^.^
Actually "science-fiction" was viewed as realistic fiction based on science by many of the great Sci-fi authors, including Heinlein, Asimov or Lem. The modern sentiment that science-fiction is not meant to be realistic - especially spread by television - makes me sad.
It's not supposed to, but it looks like. The loading screen of Khoral missions shows a city that covers most of the planet. I noticed that too, and it almost looked like: "The old capital world was an entire city. That was cool. Let's say the new capital world is an entire city too!" After all, the first three missions of SC1 were on Mar Sara and they were cool. Then the planet gets fried, part of the atmosphere burns, all life is extinguished. Guess where SC2 begins.
I don't really understand your argument... Basically you are saying on one hand, stuff should make sense and be authentic and obey the laws of physics, while on the other hand there should be magic and teleportation 'n shit?
There are things you accept because that's what the universe is based on, and you expect everything else to be (more or less) similar to real life.
I have no problem with terrans becoming telepaths because "there have been mutations", but I would consider an other "mutation" that allows ghosts to shoot fireballs and control weather to be completely silly. This is true even if such mutations are, after all, no less believable than winged, acid-spitting mutalisks that outrun jet fighters and overpower them in ranged combat.
Tal'darim are highly religious. As they saw area around the Breath of Creation is jungle, they made a conclusion, that jungle is what the Creator wants, and then terraformed whole rock into jungle.
On October 14 2011 20:20 cjin wrote: Tal'darim are highly religious. As they saw area around the Breath of Creation is jungle, they made a conclusion, that jungle is what the Creator wants, and then terraformed whole rock into jungle.
Good one. Being artificial is a good reason for not following the normal rules of nature.
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.
perhaps its an extremely hot planet but terran armor allows them to survive? and zerg is chill with it and protoss are too focused on aiur
On October 14 2011 14:24 Paradice wrote: Bel'Shir is not entirely jungle... it has beaches!
Mar Sara.. I don't recall a campaign mission "map out the entire planet of Mar Sara" - and without that, how can you make sweeping generalisations about the entire planet based solely on a few key locations you have seen or read about?
But enough nitpicking. If the question is why the planets are like this, it's because: it can make epic Sci Fi.
There are two types of sci fi: ones where all the planets are kinda like Earth (maybe with some twist), and ones where all the planets are totally different and crazy. Each is valid, but you cannot mix those styles. And for videogames in particular, I daresay a campaign where you explored subtle climate variations on multiple Earthlike planets simply less visually engaging.
Is the gigantic-single-biome planet an example of "lazy" sci-fi? Maybe sometimes. But then sometimes it's freaking Dune.
Haha. I disagree so much with you, still I like it so much that you concern the same point Im interested at.
Acorddig 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 miss depth in planets lore. I agree with you: sometimes sci-fi can hurt epic. But why isn´t Dune "lazy"? There is only one tileset, but the planet have its own politcs, economy, and even religion. Its very deep. Of course, I dont want every planet of Starcraft as deep and lore-rich as Arrakis. I just want them to feel like planets, not countries or regions.
And some planets do feel like planets: like Aiur. Even though I disagree with the "all jungle" thing, it has actually jungle AND caves, it has places that are linked to the Protoss' history. Its not Arrakis, it doesnt need to be Arrakis because Starcraft is about a whole sector, but Aiur feels like its really big.
Mas Sara, in the other hand, feels like just like anyplace in Earth would feel in the XVII century. You know its there, its either colonized/habitated or not, and it never gets more complex than a big city. It works to tell the story? Yes, and I agree that storytelling comes first. But it would be better it felt like a planet.
TL; DR: currently, SC´s planets are like islands in the space. Even if they don´t get "scientific" or "plausible", it would be neet if they feeled bigger.
On October 11 2011 14:08 [UNC]oRe.saMa wrote: You assume there is only one sun. Perhaps it's a binary (or more!) system.
If there where 2 suns then in all likely hood the 2 suns and all the planets would be pulled into the same plane by gravity and thus the poles would still be colder so a binary system doesn't really help.
Obviously the planet would still be hotter than a planet heated from just 1 side by an equally powerful sun. But it's poles would still be a lot colder than the equator.
I thought that a binary system was impossible to have a planet in the goldilocks zone? It would either be way too far away or get sucked in or fried every year.
Also, just to note, Bel'Shir beach (the map) has water all over it. The canopy of their plants probably just covers the oceans and shit seaweed and reefs?
On October 11 2011 14:25 -NegativeZero- wrote: Because sci-fi writers are lazy, especially for games where everyone mostly just cares about the gameplay.
I recommend anyone reading this thread go and check out this link. I just spent like 20 minutes clicking through all the hyperlinks explaining stereotypes of science fiction. It's very entertaining and makes a lot of sense. Good random tidbits to have in your head, imo.
This isn't the first unrealistic aspect of the lore. It's safe to assume it's all happening in another universe where only some of our notions apply. The easiest explanation is that they've made the planets rather resemble our Earth countries and typical land areas - each planet corresponds to one type of land on Earth. That's very typical for people when imagining things. On the good side, it's also intuitively (if one doesn't put thought into it) the easiest to go along with, and to appreciate as viewer or reader.
On October 15 2011 12:10 SpoR wrote: I thought that a binary system was impossible to have a planet in the goldilocks zone? It would either be way too far away or get sucked in or fried every year.
If the 2 stars orbit each other at large ranges as seems to be the case with alpha centauri (although it may get too close due to eliptical orbit), it should be possible for planets to orbit just one of them closely enough for the other to have no real effect on climate etc. I don't think that throws them out anymore than a planet having moons. Assuming similarly sized stars in effect its more like two solar systems orbiting each other which shouldn't stop either or both having earth like planets.
If its a small star closely orbiting a big one that all goes to bits and you end up with a planet in a silly big orbit. I dont think stars come bright enough to heat a planet at 60AU
Immense amounts of greenhouse gases or maybe multiple light sources (close orbiting stars, multiple suns) could make the entire planet basically a jungle resting on top of pure ocean.
On October 16 2011 09:10 Gradius wrote: So Bel'Shir is what broke your guys' suspension of disbelief eh? Personally I'd be happy if someone could explain this one to me:
well, the planet is hollow, but the surface has gravity, which could mean a couple of things:
1. new folsom prison actually rests on the interior of the sphere with gravity provided by rotation. The Terran could have blasted the center out of a moonlet or asteroid and used those giant girders to stabilize the remenants. why they would do that just to create a prison I have no idea.
2. there is something really dense in the center of the sphere, like maybe a mini-black hole. A black hole could explain the bright light in the center of the sphere, as radiation is emmited as gas from the surrounding nebula is accreted by the black hole. The Terran seem like they would be incapable of engineering that advanced, so may be it is an artifact of the xel-naga, or maybe some sort of energy gathering/production facility for the protoss that was captured by the dominion and converted into a prison.
3. gravity plating. Which obviously exists in the SC universe (or how is there gravity on the Hyperion?), kinda boring explaination though.
On October 16 2011 09:10 Gradius wrote: So Bel'Shir is what broke your guys' suspension of disbelief eh? Personally I'd be happy if someone could explain this one to me:
well, the planet is hollow, but the surface has gravity, which could mean a couple of things:
1. new folsom prison actually rests on the interior of the sphere with gravity provided by rotation. The Terran could have blasted the center out of a moonlet or asteroid and used those giant girders to stabilize the remenants. why they would do that just to create a prison I have no idea.
2. there is something really dense in the center of the sphere, like maybe a mini-black hole. A black hole could explain the bright light in the center of the sphere, as radiation is emmited as gas from the surrounding nebula is accreted by the black hole. The Terran seem like they would be incapable of engineering that advanced, so may be it is an artifact of the xel-naga, or maybe some sort of energy gathering/production facility for the protoss that was captured by the dominion and converted into a prison.
3. gravity plating. Which obviously exists in the SC universe (or how is there gravity on the Hyperion?), kinda boring explaination though.
On October 16 2011 09:10 Gradius wrote: So Bel'Shir is what broke your guys' suspension of disbelief eh? Personally I'd be happy if someone could explain this one to me:
well, the planet is hollow, but the surface has gravity, which could mean a couple of things:
1. new folsom prison actually rests on the interior of the sphere with gravity provided by rotation. The Terran could have blasted the center out of a moonlet or asteroid and used those giant girders to stabilize the remenants. why they would do that just to create a prison I have no idea.
2. there is something really dense in the center of the sphere, like maybe a mini-black hole. A black hole could explain the bright light in the center of the sphere, as radiation is emmited as gas from the surrounding nebula is accreted by the black hole. The Terran seem like they would be incapable of engineering that advanced, so may be it is an artifact of the xel-naga, or maybe some sort of energy gathering/production facility for the protoss that was captured by the dominion and converted into a prison.
3. gravity plating. Which obviously exists in the SC universe (or how is there gravity on the Hyperion?), kinda boring explaination though.
On October 11 2011 23:33 Koreish wrote: Deserts are defined by little to no precipitation. You can have an Ice Desert so long as it doesn't snow, rain, hail, etc. A prime example on earth are the poles. Both have Ice since it is so cold but neither receive much precipitation also due to the extreme cold.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/precipitation pre·cip·i·ta·tion (pr-sp-tshn) n. 1. A headlong fall or rush. 2. Abrupt or impulsive haste. 3. A hastening or acceleration, especially one that is sudden or unexpected: He is responsible for the precipitation of his own demise. 4. Meteorology a. Any form of water, such as rain, snow, sleet, or hail, that falls to the earth's surface. b. The quantity of such water falling in a specific area within a specific period. 5. Chemistry The process of separating a substance from a solution as a solid.
This seems like a stupid thing to worry about when you're playing a game with spaceships, aliens, telekinesis, warp technology, and cloaking. Just sayin'. I mean, maybe the plants aren't carbon based?
It's really early in the morning and I definitely read this thread title in the side-bar as "Weird Pants in Lore." Which would also be a remarkably interesting thread.
They built in space those gigantic metal grids and then lower them with anti grav repulsors until they could fit in the frames previously attached to the planet crust.
Of course, they would have to strip mine a small moon or asteroid just to get enough raw iron to do that, but in the official page is said that the rare minerals in the planet were worth the cost, until they found Mar Sara and begun strip mining it. But anyway, when you have a whole sector in your hands, moons can be mined as they were just caves in earth...
If planet rotation angular speed is fast enough to match with the tangencial speed needed for the fragments to stay in orbit in geosyncronus fashion, that planet model is factible. As seen in the art, nearly every fragment is at the same radious from the core so it is possible all of them are orbiting at the same speed.
How the fragments got there? maybe an internal crack, followed by gas pressure expansion and then gravity slowing its speed until they reach geosyncronus orbit. Also, it is possible some of the fragments have magnetic rocks which repulse the others but cannot break free due to gravity, thus achieving balance.
I haven't made orbital calculations, but it would be interesting to see how much faster will have the planet to rotate, to achieve that kind of angular speeds. Maybe days are one hour long (which will explain why lava tides are in like 10 minutes in the game...)
If planet rotation angular speed is fast enough to match with the tangencial speed needed for the fragments to stay in orbit in geosyncronus fashion, that planet model is factible. As seen in the art, nearly every fragment is at the same radious from the core so it is possible all of them are orbiting at the same speed.
How the fragments got there? maybe an internal crack, followed by gas pressure expansion and then gravity slowing its speed until they reach geosyncronus orbit. Also, it is possible some of the fragments have magnetic rocks which repulse the others but cannot break free due to gravity, thus achieving balance.
I haven't made orbital calculations, but it would be interesting to see how much faster will have the planet to rotate, to achieve that kind of angular speeds.
The speed the rocks need to achieve depends on many factors - the further they are from the planet, the faster they need to go to follow the planet rotation. On the other hand, if they are close to the planet, they need to go faster because the gravity is stronger. Same if the planet is bigger. We'd need a scale of some sort to make the calculation.
We have a quarter of the planet that was blown into space, only an impact with a moon or a smaller planet could do that. No amount of volcanic activity could even get close to that.
I can't make all this remarks without adding that Raynor asks the adjutant what power source is keeping the Char platforms in geostationnary orbit. The entire point of being in orbit, particularly in geostationnary orbit, far above the atmosphere, is that you will stay there at constant speed for centuries without the need of any power source. tvtropes would rank that as You Fail Physics Forever. So trying to explain why the planets have this particular shape is like trying to explain gameplay mechanics: you can have great ideas, but keep in mind no one at Blizzard ever cared about whether or not it made sense.
If planet rotation angular speed is fast enough to match with the tangencial speed needed for the fragments to stay in orbit in geosyncronus fashion, that planet model is factible. As seen in the art, nearly every fragment is at the same radious from the core so it is possible all of them are orbiting at the same speed.
How the fragments got there? maybe an internal crack, followed by gas pressure expansion and then gravity slowing its speed until they reach geosyncronus orbit. Also, it is possible some of the fragments have magnetic rocks which repulse the others but cannot break free due to gravity, thus achieving balance.
I haven't made orbital calculations, but it would be interesting to see how much faster will have the planet to rotate, to achieve that kind of angular speeds.
The speed the rocks need to achieve depends on many factors - the further they are from the planet, the faster they need to go to follow the planet rotation. On the other hand, if they are close to the planet, they need to go faster because the gravity is stronger. Same if the planet is bigger. We'd need a scale of some sort to make the calculation.
We have a quarter of the planet that was blown into space, only an impact with a moon or a smaller planet could do that. No amount of volcanic activity could even get close to that.
I can't make all this remarks without adding that Raynor asks the adjutant what power source is keeping the Char platforms in geostationnary orbit. The entire point of being in orbit, particularly in geostationnary orbit, far above the atmosphere, is that you will stay there at constant speed for centuries without the need of any power source. tvtropes would rank that as You Fail Physics Forever. So trying to explain why the planets have this particular shape is like trying to explain gameplay mechanics: you can have great ideas, but keep in mind no one at Blizzard ever cared about whether or not it made sense.
I'm sure about that planets got in the game because they were cool and fun, not physically factible, but anyway, it is fun to teorize.
BTW, geosyncronus orbit depends on the rotation speed of the planet. In earth is at 36.000 km above ground, but in a planet with faster rotation it will be closer, maybe close enough to interact with the upper atmosphere particles, thus slowing down whatever you put there, and thus needing some power source to keep it in orbit.
Indeed current low orbit satellites need to adjust orbit from time to time due to that friction. Not geosyncronus, but that is because it is far enough.
On October 17 2011 15:26 See.Blue wrote: It's really early in the morning and I definitely read this thread title in the side-bar as "Weird Pants in Lore." Which would also be a remarkably interesting thread.
Sci-fi wise and story-telling wise, Im not satisfied with pants in Starcraft lore either,
but on earth the equator is the hottest place and the poles the coldest, because of the angle to the sun. Our planet rotates around the 23° axis, and orbits around the sun. Not every planet does that. (see the moon for example)
A different rotation, however unlikely could then result in a relatively even surface.
On October 18 2011 08:06 weikor wrote: Im no expert, correct me if im wrong
but on earth the equator is the hottest place and the poles the coldest, because of the angle to the sun. Our planet rotates around the 23° axis, and orbits around the sun. Not every planet does that. (see the moon for example)
A different rotation, however unlikely could then result in a relatively even surface.
Well I'm no expert either so please correct me if I'm wrong
But I can't see that working. Either the angle is closer to zero and the poles would be cold all year round since there would be no seasons, or the angle would be wider and the seasons would be a lot more extreme.
You're kind of right, still, "it doesn't rain a lot in Texas, Mongolia and EUROPE"? I would not put the arid lands ofTexas/Mongolia in the same sentence as, say, Ireland, weatherwise...
I think a thick layer of greenhouse gas would allow for equal surface temperature distribution if the planet do not receive that much energy from the sun (or moon in this case).
The Earth once had uniform climate as well I believe...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
your ice caps argument is invalid, the only reason why we have ice caps is because we have alternating seasons, if our planet was straight up and down on its axis, our planet would be completely green, similar to Bel'shur
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.
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.
I appreciate all the interest over the subject. Yet the main issue is not the physics. I´ll just repost something that explains better what I really meant with this topic.
On October 11 2011 23:07 KingPwny wrote: You are only considering the topological aspects of that planet. However consider the biological aspect. A plant or tree on Bel'shir could have higher tolerance levels of heat and cold. Meaning that everything would be covered in green
Agree, nobody though about that the jungle could be made of different species depending on the geographic region. But it will be a jungle anyway.
Well played sir.
Also, I think we are being too itchy with the "mono climate" topic. After all, most astronomers say Earth is an ocean world in universal standards, even if we have like 25% of land mass. So a desert planet could have like 75% of desert/arid regions and 25% sea (Mar sara) and still being labeled as "desert planet"
Same with ice planets (Hoth being the most famous one) It is supposed to be a snowball, but only ecuator is "warm" enough to support life. It was hinted than other latitudes are just too cold to live there, so climate is variable.
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 4
Acorddig 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.
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.
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 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.
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
just make every mono climate planet a brown darwf that generates it's own heat, ignore the whole gravity thing like they do for the rest of the lore and call it a day
I think you guys are looking far too deeply into a game involving faster than light travel, hyper-evolved aliens and psychics. I doubt Blizzard puts too much thought into the physics of the Koprulu sector.
There's too many variables to disclude Bel'shir entirely as a possibilty of being a full jungle planet
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
Blizzard is typically lazy with research and accuracy on things like that, but not because they're unaware, they just like to do things that way. They like to take a "creative" approach to their games, rather than a realistic one. I't definitely not my favorite style, and I think it detracts from the suspension of disbelief in some of their games, notably wow, but in SC2 as well. It would be cool if SC2 had a 2001:A Space Odyssey-esque realness to the art design, but oh well. They have other things to do I guess.
Atmospheric water vapour contributes heavily to the greenhouse effect, so its one solution that solves both the lack of water and the distribution of heat without ocean currents problem.
Earth once had little ice at the poles and was perfectly habitable (by these big dinosaur things no less), is it so much to assume that a planet could be just a few degrees warmer and have no ice caps? There have also been periods of extensive forest cover on the continents, so a "jungle" world really isn't far-fetched at all since we kinda live on a former jungle world. I think it's really less actual single-biomes than a simple lack of details given out.
On November 02 2011 12:57 Amel wrote: we should just go check the warhammer 40k lore, i bet the answers were looking for are there
All of the 40k lore is amazingly detailed and flushed out, and makes sense (Relatively speaking). There's a bit more to everything then "Let's make this planet a big factory, ooh and this one can be an apartment complex. Cool beans! Oh and sometimes you spontaneously combust or get permanently lost while traveling through space"
On the other hand, that is Blizzard's exact mindset.
"Hmm, we haven't had any missions where we used our jungle preset yet, let's make a jungle planet. Hmm... we don't have much Protoss enemies either, how about we just through in some "traitors" that the player won't feel bad about fighting? Oh and don't forget to throw in a space mission or cutscene with that cool planet backdrop Samwise thought up."
On November 06 2011 09:52 tsango wrote: depending on the number of suns around it and its rotational path, anything is possible with respect to the poles and equatorial boundaries
This exactly, I was going to type the same thing. depends on the number of suns present which might be equidistant from all points on the sphere! :D
EPT![[image loading]](http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/__cb20100327233147/starcraft/images/thumb/4/41/Bel%27shir_SC2_Art2.jpg/200px-Bel%27shir_SC2_Art2.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/7EvsD.png)
![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/7/7e/NewFolsom_SC2_Art1.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://images.wikia.com/starcraft/images/4/46/Redstone_SC2_Game1.jpg)
