Backstage - OOC Forums

EVE-Online RP Discussion and Resources => CCP Public Library => Topic started by: kalaratiri on 02 Oct 2014, 09:04

Title: Planetary size comparison
Post by: kalaratiri on 02 Oct 2014, 09:04
Not a new topic, but I thought people might find this interesting ^_^

(http://i.imgur.com/IrSLxTo.jpg)

Full size here (http://i.imgur.com/IrSLxTo.jpg)
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Alain Colcer on 02 Oct 2014, 09:26
uhm, interesting, so gallente prime is either a super earth with very low density...

or all gallenteans are super-humans  :lol:
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Anyanka Funk on 02 Oct 2014, 09:40
Would it matter if the residents of the larger planets live in underwater cities (https://wiki.eveonline.com/en/wiki/Underwater_cities)?
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Mizhara on 02 Oct 2014, 09:45
Would actually make it sort of worse, as the water pressure on a planet like that has to be absolutely staggering.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Korsavius on 02 Oct 2014, 09:48
Wow this is very...interesting :o

Some of those cities on Oris look like they could be as big as some continents on Earth!!!!
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Lyn Farel on 02 Oct 2014, 13:15
That doesn't make any astronomic sense.  :lol:
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Korsavius on 02 Oct 2014, 13:17
Alas, such is most things in EVE Online Lyn
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Lyn Farel on 02 Oct 2014, 13:37
Yes, I'm rambling.

I'm old so I can do that ?
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Jace on 02 Oct 2014, 13:40
BLARG
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Kyoko Sakoda on 02 Oct 2014, 16:08
Gravity sucks.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Gaven Lok ri on 02 Oct 2014, 19:25
Huh. Maybe I should be working in heavy gravity planet into Gaven's RP, given that he is from Oris.

Or just continue to ignore CCP planet tech details. Probably the later.

Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Elmund Egivand on 02 Oct 2014, 19:42
Huh. Maybe I should be working in heavy gravity planet into Gaven's RP, given that he is from Oris.

Or just continue to ignore CCP planet tech details. Probably the later.

Nah. Just make Gaven a superman. He can jump much higher than everyone and his bone density and muscle mass is much greater than anyone. Don't engage Gaven in fisticuffs.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Vizage on 02 Oct 2014, 19:46
I'm oddly amused by the size of Matar
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Akrasjel Lanate on 03 Oct 2014, 07:44
Nice
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Mizhara on 03 Oct 2014, 07:53
I wonder how they hollowed out the super earths, though? I mean, any even remotely similar density to Earth would result in gravity that'd utterly crush human beings. Not to mention make it incredibly expensive energy-wise to escape the gravity well for space travel.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Vizage on 03 Oct 2014, 09:43
Weren't most of these planets Terra formed by the initial colonist to new eden?  So Terran technology? I remember reading  about Terra forming and failed Terra forming (Caldari Prime. )

So would it be safe to assume at least some of these planets had their density/gravity augmented by early colonists?
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Mizhara on 03 Oct 2014, 10:02
Changing a climate I can see. Altering the density or gravity of a planet? That's so mindbogglingly beyond imagination that I doubt even Terran tech could pull that off.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Anyanka Funk on 03 Oct 2014, 10:39
If these planets were terraformed that would be easier to explain. Oris looks like it may have been a gas planet at one point.  Building a structural cage around the zero-gravity point to build on and using artificial gravity might be able to explain its size.

Gallente Prime and Caldari Prime look like they may have been ocean planets and the sparse terraforming may be due to only building on strategic points of the planets where the planets moons balance out the gravitational pull.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Alain Colcer on 03 Oct 2014, 12:23
I wonder how they hollowed out the super earths, though? I mean, any even remotely similar density to Earth would result in gravity that'd utterly crush human beings. Not to mention make it incredibly expensive energy-wise to escape the gravity well for space travel.

A planet like Orsi, that has a tiny tiny iron core, and is mostly composed of silicates and light elements, might not have enough weight to create a huge strength in gravity ......the only issue is just how much atmosphere it has.......must be very light indeed to be breathable and not cause health issues.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Aedre Lafisques on 03 Oct 2014, 12:37
Okay, I hadn't looked at their supposed sizes before. This is pretty ridiculous - This is the kind of thing we might have to ignore as automatically generated numbers...?

First of all, for Gallente Prime to have so many moons means the moons have to be small enough that they don't even affect tides (like ours does), so there's no way it accounts for counter-balancing of its entire gravitational pull.

It's not like there's a lack of planets out there with reasonable sizes (and gravities) one could far less expensively terraform, particularly if one can terraform just about anything, like proposed.

Historically, the Garoun Empire secured a unified empire over the entire continent (there is said to be only one?) pre-spaceflight from what I understand - which now seems a theoretically unlikely task at this surface area.

--This just seems like a clerical mistake to me - The circumference of the Earth is just slightly more than 40,000km, so maybe that's what was intended by these numbers!  Mistakes involving Radius vs Diameter vs Circumference could account for planets too small to retain atmosphere, too potentially?!  :psyccp: I'm boggling here.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Louella Dougans on 03 Oct 2014, 13:12
historically, CCP's response to astronomical numbers being questionable has been along the lines of the Grand Galactic Inquisitor's comment here (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U62vMI8Npfo&feature=youtu.be&t=29s)
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Tamiroth on 04 Oct 2014, 08:37
Interesting. Both Amarr Prime and Matar are low-G, Mars-sized worlds, while Gallente and Caldari Prime are high-G super-earths. Also, imagine the PITA that the early Amarrians went through to colonize Oris. The development of mechanical implants and exosketetons to compensate for the high gravity must have been a prority. 
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Jace on 04 Oct 2014, 08:43
I think I'll go with handwavy terraform.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Morwen Lagann on 04 Oct 2014, 09:08
I'll stick with "CCP's decision not to hand-edit the datapoints for major population centers and instead leave it up to randomly generated values is fucking moronic and can go fuck itself," I think.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Gaven Lok ri on 04 Oct 2014, 15:06
Its also not exactly clear how/when CCP decided which planets had populations. My memory is that 8 years or so ago no one knew that Oris had cities on it.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Mizhara on 04 Oct 2014, 15:22
On the bright side, unless you're planning to bombard the place from orbit, it's a fair bet that you won't really have a need for it that can't be filled by vague muttering.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Kyoko Sakoda on 04 Oct 2014, 17:42
Guys, this is all part of the plan to prevent bunny hopping in Project Legion.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Aedre Lafisques on 04 Oct 2014, 17:57
I'll stick with "CCP's decision not to hand-edit the datapoints for major population centers and instead leave it up to randomly generated values is fucking moronic and can go fuck itself," I think.

:psyccp:

Well~  I'm not going to lose sleep over it I guess XD I don't expect them to 'change it or something'.
But for the moment, I kind of have to continue assume it is sort of a normal-place-as-described over data in this case...
I mean look at it~  (ノ -_-)ノ

Guys, this is all part of the plan to prevent bunny hopping in Project Legion.

^^^Haha~
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Esna Pitoojee on 04 Oct 2014, 18:14
I've pointed to the RNG in answer to the fairly ridiculous planetary numbers for years, and I'll point to it again here.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Ollie on 05 Oct 2014, 06:37
I've pointed to the RNG in answer to the fairly ridiculous planetary numbers for years, and I'll point to it again here.

That and "scifi/space magic" for an IC explanation? :)
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Jace on 05 Oct 2014, 07:56
The magic's in meeeee, the magic's in youuuuu.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Elmund Egivand on 05 Oct 2014, 11:21
The magic's in meeeee, the magic's in youuuuu.

Barrage Rounds Are Magic
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Esna Pitoojee on 06 Oct 2014, 10:07
That and "scifi/space magic" for an IC explanation? :)

Frankly, I don't bother with an IC explanation when there's something this dumb going on. My IC explanation is "the planets are actually reasonably-sized planets with some minor variation in size but not enough to break the laws of physics or biology."

Honestly, you want an IC explanation? "Your Neocom is displaying faulty data." That's about as close as I get.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Elmund Egivand on 06 Oct 2014, 19:57
That and "scifi/space magic" for an IC explanation? :)

Frankly, I don't bother with an IC explanation when there's something this dumb going on. My IC explanation is "the planets are actually reasonably-sized planets with some minor variation in size but not enough to break the laws of physics or biology."

Honestly, you want an IC explanation? "Your Neocom is displaying faulty data." That's about as close as I get.

But everybody's Neocom displays that same data.

I should say the best explanation is 'Our Planetologists were University of Caille students and they were high as a kite when they gave us these data'.
Title: Re: Planetary size comparison
Post by: Jace on 06 Oct 2014, 21:04
I should say the best explanation is 'Our Planetologists were University of Caille students and they were high as a kite when they gave us these data'.

I support this explanation.