Backstage - OOC Forums
EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => Player Driven Content => Topic started by: Kemekk on 29 Jun 2011, 21:32
-
Obviously stations are all colonized, but what about planets? Are there only a few planets in New Eden that are habitable, or are their thousands?
Are only temperate planets considered habitable or could they all (Obviously not lava planets...) be colonized?
Is there a list of habitable planets (determined either by CCP lore or player fiction) anywhere?
-
Temperate planets would be habitable by definition. They're worlds that can sustain human life with minimal shelters. The other planet types could be inhabited, but require various shelters of sorts. It doesn't seem likely that all habitable planets are currently colonized.
There's no full list that I know of, though I once considered flying to every temperate planet in the game and checking to see if there were lights on them. But I don't have the time to do so.
-
I didn't mean to suggest that all habitable planets were colonized, just saying that it would be very unlikely that there were only a handful per race.
Also I assume that for ease of development, every temperate planet in the game has lights on it.
-
The 126 populous temperate planets of the Federation have been listed (http://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Populous_Temperate_Worlds_in_the_Gallente_Federation), thanks to Seriphyn Inhonores. Assuming the habitable planet number density is roughly constant, there would be around 500 of them in total.
-
Do you know if there's one of those for Amarr planets?
-
I would note two things here: 1, given the presence in PF of such normally-uninhabitable planets as the Seylinn I colony, I think we can assume that many planets beyond the temperate ones have colonies on them.
2, it's quite possible that even the inhabited temperate planets have populations far lower than "Earth standard" - hundreds of millions, perhaps, on the more built-up colonies; tens or just a few million on the more "frontier" worlds.
-
Heh, I need to finish that guide...it's incomplete atm, and only documents planets with city lights.
It's simple enough; find a temperate world in highsec and fly to its darkside, see if it has city lights. Even if it doesn't, it likely has a very sparse population smaller than a billion.
The Federation is an interesting case. Seyllin I was described as being completely subterranean, yet there was a working ecosystem present with flora, skyscrapers and so on (likely a rendered sky as well). Obviously, all of the other empires would have colonies on non-temperate worlds, but "functional" cultures like Minmatar and Caldari would unlikely go as far as to making it all fancy like the Gallente.
-
You can probably assume that any temperate world has at least a small city (3-4million inhabitants). Even if the atmosphere pressure or gravity isn't up to earth standards, general agro-forestry activities in these landscapes would be much cheaper, easier and productive than on stations.
For barren planets, it is possible early stages of terraforming are in progress, and therefore small dome-cities sit at suitable geographic locations (near poles for ice/water on hot worlds, near equator on colder ones).
Personally i think it was only the gaseous, storm, lava and plasma planets that really lacked any "permanent" colonists.
-
The descriptions of oceanic and storm worlds lists them as terrestrial, which means earth-like. I'd assume both would be able to be colonized, with underwater cities on oceanic worlds and possibly some small island cities (assuming there are any at all on an oceanic world), and for storm worlds I assume they have some sort of suitable landscape beneath the atmosphere since they are listed as having a primarily rocky mass.
There are some planets like both of those in Mass Effect and Star Wars lore.
-
Gallenteans are big fans of underwater cities. The description of Oceanic world Planetary Interaction Nodes have them as industrial structures on the ocean floor. They might vary from functional to exotic, depending on the culture building them.
-
Is the information on those planets just made up or is any of it sourced anywhere?
It seems like a rather pointless (and potentially counter-productive) endeavor to create a fictional background about every random planet with lights on it. I'd be much more interested in a list of them, with descriptions sourced from PF if they exist, and then something along the lines of "There is no official information on this planet's population" if it's not mentioned anywhere.
-
"There is no official information on this planet's population" would constitute pretty much all 126 entries. Even worlds that were referred to as populated in chrons and such are not even temperate in-game.
-
I see.
And don't think I don't appreciate the effort that went into making that. It is very impressive and quite cool and I wish CCP would do something like that too.
I just think that we'll eventually run into a point where CCP will do SOMETHING with one (or more) of the planets and render your work for naught.
-
Yeah man, the Hammer of CCP will definitely come down Eventually (or is that Soon™?). But until then...
-
I see.
And don't think I don't appreciate the effort that went into making that. It is very impressive and quite cool and I wish CCP would do something like that too.
I just think that we'll eventually run into a point where CCP will do SOMETHING with one (or more) of the planets and render your work for naught.
Using CCP PF as well as player material as sources and inspiration, the ILF has been developing quite a bit of information on Intaki and a number of colonial worlds. It could very well happen that CCP will eventually void all of our efforts, but in the meantime it gives us a sandcastle to play in. And there is some hope that CCP will recognize the quality of our efforts and make use of them.
At some point we'll move on to fleshing out various facets of the back story, and I will keep your material in mind when we get around to the Gallente bloodlines.
As you probably know, Mr. Danielsson is the author of "The Burning Life" and many CCP chrons written under the name CCP Abraxas. Now his comment could have been a pat on the head, but in the larger context of our e-mail exchanges, I think there was sincerity to it.
Of course, this all comes with CCP's trademark "eventually" and his sincerity could be made irrelevant by some future change in direction.
-
I've been doing some research on various planet attributes such as temperature, gravity, escape velocity, etc., for both temperate and non-temperate planets, and a lot of them come within the habitable range for humans, some are even about 75% similar to earth's characteristics. The only problem is, a lot of these planets don't have lights on the dark side. Is it safe to assume that there are colonies on these planets, or should I just assume that there are none because of the lack of lights?
I've also found some interesting things in this research. The RP channel "Amarr Legio Basilica" is situated on the planet Oris in Amarr, but Oris's gravity is 3 times that of Earth's. It's still in the habitable zone, but everyone would be very heavy on Oris, and most residents would likely have knee problems.
-
I'm not quite sure how to put this, since I sound like a crotchety bittervet, but...
Data for planets appear to have been randomly generated. The visible skins for planets have radically changed once (along with their nature -- temperate to lava, for instance -- although with PI we don't expect that to happen again) and we expect that at least some planet-skins will change again (Matar is currently a water-world with islands, not at all like its descriptions, and this has been acknowledged as "off"). We don't know if the lights on the skins have any significance beyond random prettiness, despite Seri's mapping project.
I'd love it if planet mapping meant something, but it's on my list of things that are broken, so trying to extrapolate from them probably isn't the best idea.
-
So are you saying that the temperature, gravity, and visual skins should be considered as incorrect?
-
So are you saying that the temperature, gravity, and visual skins should be considered as incorrect?
Unless there's been a substantial change -- and I'm sure someone will tell me if there has been -- yes.
-
They have to be considered with a lot of caution, I think. When they introduced Tyrannis and PI, I do not know if you noticed but a lot of planets were simply changed to fit more accordingly to their type (before it was totally random, you had gas giants with very hot temperatures, etc). Now they are all more or less in line with their type.
But it is still not enough to fit to the PF in some particular cases.
-
So are you saying that the temperature, gravity, and visual skins should be considered as incorrect?
The in-game statistics used to be widely off (temperate planets with near absolute zero temperatures, say), but those got somewhat fixed a while ago.
For example, Pator IV (Matar) is described as a lush paradise world in PF which has suffered somewhat under industrialization. The planetary data lists it with 306 K surface temperature (33 C) and a surface gravity of 9.87 m/s² (very close to earth's 9.81 m/s²). The other planets of PF look similarly "ok". So I would assume that at least the main PF planet numbers are roughly correct. (Obviously, those are averages, not "the whole planet looks like this"; Matar has vast somewhat cold tundras, for example.)
The Sansha incursions seemed to treat any temperate planet as inhabited.
If someone gives me a rough definition of when a planet counts as "habitable", I can provide per-faction counts (and lists, if wanted) of them ...
-
So are you saying that the temperature, gravity, and visual skins should be considered as incorrect?
The in-game statistics used to be widely off (temperate planets with near absolute zero temperatures, say), but those got somewhat fixed a while ago.
For example, Pator IV (Matar) is described as a lush paradise world in PF which has suffered somewhat under industrialization. The planetary data lists it with 306 K surface temperature (33 C) and a surface gravity of 9.87 m/s² (very close to earth's 9.81 m/s²). The other planets of PF look similarly "ok". So I would assume that at least the main PF planet numbers are roughly correct. (Obviously, those are averages, not "the whole planet looks like this"; Matar has vast somewhat cold tundras, for example.)
The Sansha incursions seemed to treat any temperate planet as inhabited.
If someone gives me a rough definition of when a planet counts as "habitable", I can provide per-faction counts (and lists, if wanted) of them ...
I made a personal list of each planet type (minus lava and plasma) near the Amarr system that have earth like conditions and should in theory be habitable. I have storm, ice, oceanic, barren, and temperate planets that all have similar gravity and temperature (with the exception of the ice planets being colder and barren planets being hotter, but not by enough to make them uninhabitable) to Earth, but if it's considered that the stats that show when you look at the planet's info are incorrect then all of that work seems like it was for nothing.
-
So are you saying that the temperature, gravity, and visual skins should be considered as incorrect?
The in-game statistics used to be widely off (temperate planets with near absolute zero temperatures, say), but those got somewhat fixed a while ago.
For example, Pator IV (Matar) is described as a lush paradise world in PF which has suffered somewhat under industrialization. The planetary data lists it with 306 K surface temperature (33 C) and a surface gravity of 9.87 m/s² (very close to earth's 9.81 m/s²). The other planets of PF look similarly "ok". So I would assume that at least the main PF planet numbers are roughly correct. (Obviously, those are averages, not "the whole planet looks like this"; Matar has vast somewhat cold tundras, for example.)
The Sansha incursions seemed to treat any temperate planet as inhabited.
If someone gives me a rough definition of when a planet counts as "habitable", I can provide per-faction counts (and lists, if wanted) of them ...
I made a personal list of each planet type (minus lava and plasma) near the Amarr system that have earth like conditions and should in theory be habitable. I have storm, ice, oceanic, barren, and temperate planets that all have similar gravity and temperature (with the exception of the ice planets being colder and barren planets being hotter, but not by enough to make them uninhabitable) to Earth, but if it's considered that the stats that show when you look at the planet's info are incorrect then all of that work seems like it was for nothing.
It sounds like you might be in a good position to tell us if the current numbers are reasonable, then.
They used to be way off, quite a few of them in the physically-impossible-or-really-unlikely realm (as I discovered a couple of years ago when I started doing what you're doing now, hence my current dose of :bittervet:, sorry). They've changed since then, and seem to have improved. Could you help us work out if they've improved enough to be useful?
We generally evaluate this type of data by checking whether it's:
- internally consistent: would having diameter X and gravity Y require that the planet be made of solid uranium?
- consistent with explicit canon: do the stats for and appearance of planets like Matar and Caldari Prime generally fit the descriptions we have of those planets?
My impression from comments here is that the current data isn't glaringly internally inconsistent like the old data was. I'd love more feedback on that.
We know that at least some of the planet-skin changes are inaccurate because they conflict with canonical information we have about those particular planets. That seems to suggest the application of skins to planets was random rather than intentional, meaning that the presence of darkside lights may well be random as well (or it could be the start of something "true", and those of us who got burnt last time might be missing out through allowing our bittervethood to prevail).
As for temperature information, I've had a quick scan for sources for Earth's average temperature and have come up with numbers in the 13-15 degrees Celsius range. We're very concerned about the effects an increase of 2-4 degrees might have here on Earth, so I'm going to take a punt and say that if Matar has an average temperature of 306K = 33 degrees C either it's no longer close to the paradisical planet it once was (possible: we know it was badly polluted), or the numbers are still wrong. (When the new-new planet skins came out some of us did make jokes that the reason Matar had been in the news because of pressure for real estate (http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2791&tid=9) wasn't because of an influx of migrants but was due to flooding through global warming.)
-
Using just temperature and surface gravity, assuming that "habitable" means a temperature between 250 K (-23 C) to 330 K (56 C) and a surface gravity between 3 m/s² (Mars has 3.7 m/s²) and 20 m/s² (a bit over twice earth's gravity of 9.81 m/s²), I get the following planet counts:
Amarr Empire | 1835
Gallente Federation | 948
Caldari State | 865
Minmatar Republic | 740
Ammatar Mandate | 295
Jove Empire | 294
Sansha's Nation | 293
The Syndicate | 242
Thukker Tribe | 222
Khanid Kingdom | 220
Guristas Pirates | 213
ORE | 143
Angel Cartel | 119
The Blood Raider Covenant | 35
The Society | 21
CONCORD Assembly | 20
The Servant Sisters of EVE | 20
Serpentis | 18
Mordu's Legion Command | 13
The InterBus | 4
(This includes high-, low and zero-sec)
As for planet types:
Planet (Barren) | 2890
Planet (Temperate) | 2367
Planet (Oceanic) | 429
Planet (Ice) | 390
Planet (Storm) | 333
Planet (Plasma) | 86
Planet (Gas) | 65
Looks to me as if the numbers I chose were a bit too nice. If anyone has better numbers, I can re-run this :-)
-
It sounds like you might be in a good position to tell us if the current numbers are reasonable, then.
They used to be way off, quite a few of them in the physically-impossible-or-really-unlikely realm (as I discovered a couple of years ago when I started doing what you're doing now, hence my current dose of :bittervet:, sorry). They've changed since then, and seem to have improved. Could you help us work out if they've improved enough to be useful?
We generally evaluate this type of data by checking whether it's:
- internally consistent: would having diameter X and gravity Y require that the planet be made of solid uranium?
- consistent with explicit canon: do the stats for and appearance of planets like Matar and Caldari Prime generally fit the descriptions we have those planets?
My impression from comments here is that the current data isn't glaringly internally inconsistent like the old data was. I'd love more feedback on that.
We know that at least some of the planet-skin changes are inaccurate because they conflict with canonical information we have about those particular planets. That seems to suggest the application of skins to planets was random rather than intentional, meaning that the presence of darkside lights may well be random as well (or it could be the start of something "true", and those of us who got burnt last time might be missing out through allowing our bittervethood to prevail).
As for temperature information, I've had a quick scan for sources for Earth's average temperature and have come up with numbers in the 13-15 degrees Celsius range. We're very concerned about the effects an increase of 2-4 degrees might have here on Earth, so I'm going to take a punt and say that if Matar has an average temperature of 306K = 33 degrees C either it's no longer close to the paradisical planet it once was (possible: we know it was badly polluted), or the numbers are still wrong. (When the new-new planet skins came out some of us did make jokes that the reason Matar had been in the news because of pressure for real estate (http://www.eveonline.com/news.asp?a=single&nid=2791&tid=9) wasn't because of an influx of migrants but was due to flooding through global warming.)
Well I've only been looking in the area around the Amarr system within 5 jumps, so my research is somewhat limited. In the Amarr system, Amarr Prime is within the habitable zone. It has a slightly greater gravity, slight greater temperature, but the pressure is under 1 kPa according to the planet statistics in game. I'm not entirely familiar with the canon behind Amarr Prime, but unless Amarrians have superior lungs, they'd have to all have to be wearing pressurized space suits or be indoors at all times. In other words, there are no beach resorts on Amarr Prime. I've already mentioned the problems with Oris (another inhabited planet in Amarr) previously in this thread, but because the gravity is three times that of Earth's, everyone would have super buff legs and severe knee problems. Not to mention the pressure on Oris is 10 times that of Earth's, but the planet is inhabited in lore and RPers have already used it as such.
Irnin V is also very earthlike, but suffers from the same pressure problems as Amarr Prime, though it does not have lights on the dark side of the planet. Some other planets with near Earth conditions include Kor-Azor Prime II (Oceanic), Leva XI (Storm) and Mahrokht XI (Ice), though all but Leva XI have pressure that would be too low for human life, too low for water to be in liquid form, and too low for the air to even be breathable.
In conclusion, I think most of the planet statistics appear accurate except for the pressure, for the sole reason that it would make Amarr Prime and Oris uninhabitable, which contradicts canon lore.
-
From what I know about planets, the three main items for a planet to be habitable are temperature, pressure, and gravity, the first two must support liquid water (for humans anyway) and the last needs to be within spitting distance of 1 g, though one could debate this, and lower levels of gravity would not be bad for the human body, but would be bad at some point for keeping atmosphere in. However, there are other things, which I don't remember if they are in the data dump, like orbital period, rotational period, and axial tilt. If a planet has no orbital tilt, there will be no seasons for instance. Also, if a planet rotates at the same rate it orbits its star, so that one side always faces the star, that side will become very hot, while the other side will become very cold.
TLDR, found a nice article on wikipedia that seems to go over most of this here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability)
-
From what I know about planets, the three main items for a planet to be habitable are temperature, pressure, and gravity, the first two must support liquid water (for humans anyway) and the last needs to be within spitting distance of 1 g, though one could debate this, and lower levels of gravity would not be bad for the human body, but would be bad at some point for keeping atmosphere in. However, there are other things, which I don't remember if they are in the data dump, like orbital period, rotational period, and axial tilt. If a planet has no orbital tilt, there will be no seasons for instance. Also, if a planet rotates at the same rate it orbits its star, so that one side always faces the star, that side will become very hot, while the other side will become very cold.
TLDR, found a nice article on wikipedia that seems to go over most of this here. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planetary_habitability)
Those are the basics I was going off of, but EVE doesn't list the rotational speeds of planets, only orbit period. Amarr Prime, for example, orbits the sun every 25 days, so that's a year on Amarr Prime. It doesn't say anything about rotation, but if it's anywhere near Earth's (probably isn't though) a day would be around a minute and a half long which is ridiculous for human life.
-
An orbit in 25 DAYS???!?!?!??!?!
Assuming that's an earth day, that's insane. Can you post or point me to all the knowns for Amarr prime and for that stat it orbits? If there is enough information, I could probably figure out about what it should be. Might as well use all that stuff I learned for something.
-
Temperature: 306 K
Orbit Radius: 0.465 AU
Eccentricity: 0.039
Mass: 5.8e+23 kg
Denity: 2614.1 g/cm^3
Surface Gravity: 10.4 m/s^2
Escape Velocity: 4.5 km/s
Orbit Period: 25 days
Pressure: Very low
Radius: 3,750 km
-
I'll be upfront and say that I think there's really no use in looking at the scientific data of any of the planets.
-
Denity: 2614.1 g/cm^3
I suspect they have screwed up their units.
Mild steel is about 7.85 g/cm3 (7850 kg/m3 ) - and Granite is about 2691 kg/m3, so I think they should be using kg/m^3 instead of g/cm^3
-
I'll be upfront and say that I think there's really no use in looking at the scientific data of any of the planets.
I started doing it to see if any of the non-temperate planets could be inhabited, and judging by the ingame data, it's more likely that life would survive on a non-temperate planet than a temperate one.
-
Which is exactly why the in-game data is useless and shouldn't be taken for canon. It's pretty clear that temperate planets are the life-bearing worlds.
The in-game data was arbitrarily created in EVE's inception, back when planets were randomly skinned into "Solid", "Ice" and "Gas", and you couldn't really tell what was what. They were not changed when the reskins came in Dominion in 2009.
-
I thought they did fix the astrographical data at the time. Certainly, they made a big deal about hiring some astrophysicist to do so.
-
I thought they did fix the astrographical data at the time. Certainly, they made a big deal about hiring some astrophysicist to do so.
Well he was a terrible astrophysicist.
-
I thought they did fix the astrographical data at the time. Certainly, they made a big deal about hiring some astrophysicist to do so.
Well he was a terrible astrophysicist.
I think it was more "bring planets to within absolutely habitable ranges", i.e., temperatures not near absolute zero, masses not so huge the cores should be undergoing fusion, gravities not so high our bones should be shattering (although as Kemekk pointed out, gravity still may be quite heavy).
-
Temperature: 306 K
Orbit Radius: 0.465 AU
Eccentricity: 0.039
Mass: 5.8e+23 kg
Denity: 2614.1 g/cm^3
Surface Gravity: 10.4 m/s^2
Escape Velocity: 4.5 km/s
Orbit Period: 25 days
Pressure: Very low
Radius: 3,750 km
Thanks, no time right now, but I'll chew over this today and see what I can deduce. However, just looking at it this doesn't make sense. Compared to Earth, this planet has a full order of magnitude less mass, but more gravity, a lower escape velocity, and a radius about half that of Earth. The temperature is on the high side of a mean temperature (Earth's is 287.2K or 14 degrees C), and the eccentricity is three times that of Earth's.
And I agree with Kemekk, whoever did this should not be allowed near actual spacecraft or planets.
-
I'm not sure what they've done with these figures -- though, in their defense, the stars that should have collapsed into black holes and the gas giants that should have ignited are gone now.
I wouldn't have imagined it'd be too hard to make certain values dependent on the others -- escape velocity being sqrt(2GM/r) and local gravitational field strength being Gm/r^2, say. I doubt that these kind of obscure lore features are high on CCP's list (and even someone as nitpicky as myself would rather see other things handled first), but it's still kind of strange.
-
Okay, cranking everything out, and using an estimate for the Amarr star's mass, if Amarr Prime has a period of 25 earth days, its orbit should be around 23 X 10^9 meters in radius, or less than half the listed distance of 0.465 AU or 69.564 X 10^9 meters. If it orbits at an average of 69.564 X 10^9 meters, then its period (length of the year) should be about 132.6 earth days. Also, on a guess I looked up Mercury and its has a very close match with the listed orbital radius for Amarr Prime. So yeah, they didn't try hard enough on this for me.
Also, looking up more stuff about habital zones, and assuming that the Amarr Star's luminosity is compared to the Suns (since there are no units this is the only think I could think of that made sense, given the small number), the habital zone of such a star would be approximately .29 AU, meaning Amarr Prime should be a frozen rock. Amarr VIII Oris, out a 7.789 AUs should be a REALLY frozen rock. Which leads me to one conclusion.
Damn Jovians...
-
Matar (Pator IV) info from in-game:
Temperature: 306 K (much hotter, Earth mean 287.2K)
Orbit radius: 2.663 AU (much farther away, Earth orbiths at 1 AU)
Eccentricity: 0.009 (less eccentric, Earth 0.01671123)
Mass: 5.9e+23kg (much lighter, Earth 5.9e+24kg)
Density: 4068.5 g/cm^3 (smaller, Earth 5.515 g/cm3)
Surface gravity: 9.9m/s^2 (almost same, Earth 9.780327 m/s2)
Escape velocity: 4.9km/s (much smaller, Earth 11,186 km/s)
Orbit period: 1357 days (much longer, Earth 365.256 days)
Pressure: Very low
Radius: 3,250 km (much smaller, Earth mean radius 6,371.0 km)
So while the values given for planets now are more sensible than they used to be, I'd guess they are still off.
Note how some of the values for Matar (supposed to have been a natural paradise) differ from Earth's by an order of magnitude. By size, mass and escape velocity Matar is close to Mars, even if Matar gravity and temperature have values closer to Earth - a quite curious combination.
The show info values can also conflict with the values of other planets in the same system. For example Pator III (Huggar) and Pator IV (Matar) are both temperate worlds. Pator III temperature is listed as 307K, at 1.723 AU. Pator IV temperature is 306 K at 2.663 AU. For comparison, Pator II, a barren world, is supposedly 108K at 0.782 AU.
This leads me to believe the show info values for all planets have been independently randomly generated for each planet, and have not been checked for consistency with PF or each other.
-
Are you guys taking the values of stars into all those caculations about "being in the inhabitable zone"?.
A planet may indeed be hotter or colder in mean temperature, but its the main star that defines quite a bit the conditions. Light spectrum, size, etc.
-
Matar (Pator IV) info from in-game:
Temperature: 306 K (much hotter, Earth mean 287.2K)
Orbit radius: 2.663 AU (much farther away, Earth orbiths at 1 AU)
Eccentricity: 0.009 (less eccentric, Earth 0.01671123)
Mass: 5.9e+23kg (much lighter, Earth 5.9e+24kg)
Density: 4068.5 g/cm^3 (smaller, Earth 5.515 g/cm3)
Surface gravity: 9.9m/s^2 (almost same, Earth 9.780327 m/s2)
Escape velocity: 4.9km/s (much smaller, Earth 11,186 km/s)
Orbit period: 1357 days (much longer, Earth 365.256 days)
Pressure: Very low
Radius: 3,250 km (much smaller, Earth mean radius 6,371.0 km)
So while the values given for planets now are more sensible than they used to be, I'd guess they are still off.
Note how some of the values for Matar (supposed to have been a natural paradise) differ from Earth's by an order of magnitude. By size, mass and escape velocity Matar is close to Mars, even if Matar gravity and temperature have values closer to Earth - a quite curious combination.
The show info values can also conflict with the values of other planets in the same system. For example Pator III (Huggar) and Pator IV (Matar) are both temperate worlds. Pator III temperature is listed as 307K, at 1.723 AU. Pator IV temperature is 306 K at 2.663 AU. For comparison, Pator II, a barren world, is supposedly 108K at 0.782 AU.
This leads me to believe the show info values for all planets have been independently randomly generated for each planet, and have not been checked for consistency with PF or each other.
A habitable planet can have a hotter mean temperature than Earth's (306 Kelvin is only 91 Fahrenheit) and still have a smaller temperature range. Because of this planet's size relative to Earth, it's possible that most of the planet is in a tropical state rather than having a wide range of ecosystems. The planet is also farther away from the sun, so we could assume that the sun is much larger or much hotter than our own sun. Matar appears to be habitable to me.
-
A habitable planet can have a hotter mean temperature than Earth's (306 Kelvin is only 91 Fahrenheit) and still have a smaller temperature range. Because of this planet's size relative to Earth, it's possible that most of the planet is in a tropical state rather than having a wide range of ecosystems. The planet is also farther away from the sun, so we could assume that the sun is much larger or much hotter than our own sun. Matar appears to be habitable to me.
Theoretically correct. Now try to fit "the inhospitable steppes of the Mikramurka continent in the northern artic [sic] region on Matar (http://www.eveonline.com/races/minmatartribe_intro.asp)" into this.
Matar had the "vast Eyniletti-plains" -- "large, fertile plains of Matar, home planet of the Minmatars, with endless herds of hoofed animals" -- "the island-ridden southern hemisphere", "the mountainous region of the upper Tronhadar-valley" and "the inhospitable steppes of the Mikramurka continent in the northern artic [sic] region".
Perhaps things have changed significantly since the pollution kicked in. If so, it'd be nice to know, since a number of us Sebbies still play that Mikramurka is cold.
The Sebiestor tribe hails from the inhospitable steppes of the Mikramurka continent in the northern artic region on Matar. [....]
The Brutors are a swarthy people originating from the island-ridden southern hemisphere of Matar. [....]
The Brutor tribe and the Starkmanir tribe were once one and the same, living in the vast Eyniletti-plains. Some thousands of years ago one of the sub-clans of this tribe traversed the Mioar-strait and started settling the islands in the Mioar archipelago, moving ever more southwards. [....]
The Krusual tribe initially inhabited the mountainous region of the upper Tronhadar-valley on Matar. [....]
The large, fertile plains of Matar, home planet of the Minmatars, with endless herds of hoofed animals, proved ideal for a nomadic lifestyle. The fabulous conditions on Matar coupled with more than enough space meant there was less incentive to struggle to keep up the technology level after the closure of the EVE gate. For ages the Minmatars roamed this paradise, slowly divided by time and distance into numerous tribes.
-
Well that does contradict the ingame planet stats...
It's starting to look like we should ignore those.
-
Well that does contradict the ingame planet stats...
It's starting to look like we should ignore those.
Yeah, sorry about that...
As mentioned, although I hope not too often apparent, mine is the bitterness of disappointed hope. I'm more a world-builder and storyteller than a gamer, and EVE has so much promise.