Continuing Sysgen discussion

Discussions about Cosmic Starfire.

Moderators: SDS Members, SDS Owner

Forum rules
Cosmic Starfire is being designed by Fred Burton (aka 'Crucis'). Please direct all inquiries to him.

1. Nothing obscene.
2. No advertising or spamming.
3. No personal information. Mostly aimed at the posting of OTHER people's information.
4. No flame wars. We encourage debate, but it becomes a flame when insults fly and tempers flare.

Try to stick with the forum's topic. Threads that belong to another forum will be moved to that forum.

Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby Crucis on Thu 06 Dec 2012 02:27

As I said I'd do, I'm moving the sysgen discussion over from the TB table thread to here.

I'm going to start off by talking about the mass table.

This was the last version mentioned in the TB thread.

Mass 0: moons and planetoids
Mass 1: small rocky planets (less than 0.1 Me) (Mercury)
Mass 2: mid-sized rocky planets (0.1 to 2.6 Me) (Earth and Venus)
Mass 3: large rocky planets (2.7 to 10 Me)
Mass 4: small gas/ice giants (11 to 30 Me) (Neptune and Uranus)
Mass 5: mid-sized gas giants (31 to 300 Me) (Saturn)
Mass 6: large gas giants (301 Me to 13 Mj) (Jupiter)
Mass 7: Brown Dwarf planets (above 13 Mj)


However, this may be too much for most people, so here's another simpler version.

Mass 0: moons and planetoids
Mass 1: small rocky planets (less than 0.1 Me) (Mercury)
Mass 2: mid-sized rocky planets (0.1 to 2.6 Me) (Earth and Venus)
Mass 3: large rocky planets (2.7 to 10 Me)
Mass 4: small gas/ice giants (11 to 30 Me) (Neptune and Uranus)
Mass 5: large gas giants (greater than 31 Me) (Saturn and Jupiter)


Basically, mass 5 would include any size giant above Neptune sized, even super-jupiters and brown dwarf planets. This might not satisfy the more realism-driven sysgen fans, but this table is essentially what exists implicitly in ISF.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby Vandervecken on Thu 06 Dec 2012 03:55

Crucis wrote:However, this may be too much for most people, so here's another simpler version.


The first one is far better, I think I'd break it down even more to get 10 Numbers. (from 0 to 9). Just about everyone can handle 10 items in a group, it's a pretty handy-dandy number for us Humans. I don't have any of my old SysGen notes with me at work, so I'm quickly re-making a mass table that has only half of the 20 categories of my v6.1 SysGen for you to consider. Remember that even if Cosmic cut the rules down to 100 pages, 'Most People' would still balk at even considering buying it. (Edit - Too bad for them) The ones who do buy it can handle 8 or 10 planetary size categories easily. I figure that with any system with planets, that Ice moons and TNOs will be abundant and that just having some H2O Ice will not be the only reason we colonize a moon. A moon with enough mass to have heavier materials and having some minimal gravity will be desirable as well. Of course, sometimes it's: Location, Location, Location; but that would be a hard thing to make rules for in a game without complicating things way too much.

Have you ever considered defining moons by mass and not diameter/radius? Since your planets are figured by mass, shouldn't the cut-off point for 'significant moons' be figured in the same way? You are going to have the same cut off point as with your diameter rule but everything will be on the same scale system.

I'll get you my 10 category break down by mass hopefully before the night is thru.
Last edited by Vandervecken on Thu 06 Dec 2012 04:45, edited 1 time in total.
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby Vandervecken on Thu 06 Dec 2012 04:12

0 - 0.0001 to 0.03 Me - Significant Moon/Planetoid
1 - 0.031 to 0.10 Me - Small Rocky
2 - 0.101 to 0.65 Me - Medium Rocky
3 - 0.651 to 1.40 Me - Large Rocky
4 - 1.401to 10.0 Me - Huge Rocky (Dwarf GG)
5 - 10.01 to 25.0 Me - Small GG
6 - 25.01 to 225. Me - Medium GG
7 - 225.1 to 500. Me - Large GG
8 - 500.1 to 4100 Me - Huge GG
9 - 4101+ Me - Brown Dwarfs

Edit - redid 0 mass to include anything just a touch smaller than Ceres or bigger.
2nd edit - modified mass 2 high end to match up better with mass 3 planet low end. (switched 0.6 to 0.65)
4th and 5th edit - modified Large Rocky (Class 3) to max. at 1.4 and to note edit.
Last edited by Vandervecken on Wed 12 Dec 2012 05:12, edited 5 times in total.
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby Vandervecken on Thu 06 Dec 2012 05:26

I love wikipedia. When trying to put Ceres mass into that of earth, I found even in the same article discrepancies on Ceres. One place listed it's mass as 0.0128 moons and in the text "which is in turn about 4% of the mass of the Moon.". Hmmm about 0.04 vs 0.013, which is correct ?
I weary of the chasssse. Wait for me. I will be mercccciful and quick.
User avatar
Vandervecken
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1219
Joined: Sun 29 Jan 2012 20:21
Location: Minnesnowta

Re: Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Thu 06 Dec 2012 06:08

Vandervecken wrote:0 - 0.0001 to 0.03 Me - Significant Moon/Planetoid
1 - 0.031 to 0.10 Me - Small Rocky
2 - 0.101 to 0.6 Me - Medium Rocky
3 - 0.651 to 2.20 Me - Large Rocky
4 - 2.201 to 10.0 Me - Huge Rocky (Dwarf GG)
5 - 10.01 to 25.0 Me - Small GG
6 - 25.01 to 225. Me - Medium GG
7 - 225.1 to 500. Me - Large GG
8 - 500.1 to 4100 Me - Huge GG
9 - 4101+ Me - Brown Dwarfs

Edit - redid 0 mass to include anything just a touch smaller than Ceres or bigger.


This comes very close to what I was thinking about after I went to bed last night. The only changes would be as follows.
0 Planetoid
1 Moon
2 Small rocky
3 Medium rocky
4 Large Rocky/Gas Dwarf
Last edited by AlexeiTimoshenko on Thu 06 Dec 2012 20:56, edited 1 time in total.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Re: Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby procyon on Thu 06 Dec 2012 06:20

Crucis wrote:However, this may be too much for most people, so here's another simpler version.Mass 0: moons and planetoidsMass 1: small rocky planets (less than 0.1 Me) (Mercury)Mass 2: mid-sized rocky planets (0.1 to 2.6 Me) (Earth and Venus)Mass 3: large rocky planets (2.7 to 10 Me)Mass 4: small gas/ice giants (11 to 30 Me) (Neptune and Uranus)Mass 5: large gas giants (greater than 31 Me) (Saturn and Jupiter)


Vandervecken wrote: I think I'd break it down even more to get 10 Numbers.


I'm actually going to go with crucis on this one.
The 10 entry table would be good for the uber sys gen types.
But the game differences between a small/med/large/super sized GG in game aren't exactly defined.
And could impact on the GG races if they are.

And crucis first table has 5 entries for planets, and one for a moon sized body.
So it would be fine for a d10 / 2 roll.
But I would see it more as a % or roll based system where you had a percent % of a certain sized body in the various 'zones'.

But that is me.
...and I will show you fear in a handful of dust....

Cralis wrote:I would point out that the "what was" which is different from "here and now" can easily change in the "future then."
User avatar
procyon
Sky Marshal
Sky Marshal
 
Posts: 2547
Joined: Mon 26 Apr 2010 16:26
Location: SE IOWA

Re: Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby Crucis on Thu 06 Dec 2012 08:50

Vandervecken wrote:I love wikipedia. When trying to put Ceres mass into that of earth, I found even in the same article discrepancies on Ceres. One place listed it's mass as 0.0128 moons and in the text "which is in turn about 4% of the mass of the Moon.". Hmmm about 0.04 vs 0.013, which is correct ?


The 4% number is wrong. The numbers in the physical characteristics section are correct, or at least roughly. I've seen a couple of different numbers for Ceres' mass, though they're of the same general magnitude (i.e. 9.43, 9.5, or 8.7, but all 10^20 kg).
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby Crucis on Thu 06 Dec 2012 09:13

procyon wrote:
Crucis wrote:However, this may be too much for most people, so here's another simpler version.

Mass 0: moons and planetoids
Mass 1: small rocky planets (less than 0.1 Me) (Mercury)
Mass 2: mid-sized rocky planets (0.1 to 2.6 Me) (Earth and Venus)
Mass 3: large rocky planets (2.7 to 10 Me)
Mass 4: small gas/ice giants (11 to 30 Me) (Neptune and Uranus)
Mass 5: large gas giants (greater than 31 Me) (Saturn and Jupiter)


Vandervecken wrote: I think I'd break it down even more to get 10 Numbers.


I'm actually going to go with crucis on this one.
The 10 entry table would be good for the uber sys gen types.
But the game differences between a small/med/large/super sized GG in game aren't exactly defined.
And could impact on the GG races if they are.


Not really worried about the impact on Unusual Races. ;)
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby Crucis on Thu 06 Dec 2012 11:34

Vandervecken wrote:
Crucis wrote:However, this may be too much for most people, so here's another simpler version.


The first one is far better, I think I'd break it down even more to get 10 Numbers. (from 0 to 9). Just about everyone can handle 10 items in a group, it's a pretty handy-dandy number for us Humans. I don't have any of my old SysGen notes with me at work, so I'm quickly re-making a mass table that has only half of the 20 categories of my v6.1 SysGen for you to consider. Remember that even if Cosmic cut the rules down to 100 pages, 'Most People' would still balk at even considering buying it. (Edit - Too bad for them) The ones who do buy it can handle 8 or 10 planetary size categories easily. I figure that with any system with planets, that Ice moons and TNOs will be abundant and that just having some H2O Ice will not be the only reason we colonize a moon. A moon with enough mass to have heavier materials and having some minimal gravity will be desirable as well. Of course, sometimes it's: Location, Location, Location; but that would be a hard thing to make rules for in a game without complicating things way too much.

Have you ever considered defining moons by mass and not diameter/radius? Since your planets are figured by mass, shouldn't the cut-off point for 'significant moons' be figured in the same way? You are going to have the same cut off point as with your diameter rule but everything will be on the same scale system..


I guess that we have slightly different views of who the audience for the game may be. I don't see it as whether one can "handle" 8 or 10 mass categories, but whether they really want to. I think that the Starfire core audience usually expects a reasonable level of simplicity, though there is a tolerance for some detail.

For example, I could produce a planetary formation zones table that wasn't based on color-based Star Types, but included all 50 spectral subclasses from A0 all the way to M9. It would certainly create a lot of variety when G2's don't have the same PFZ's as G8's, and so forth. But is it worth the extra space used (about 80% of a single column on a page) to include a 50 row table, when a 6* row table will probably suffice for most people?

* Six, as in White, Green, Yellow, Orange, Red, and Red Dwarf.

And BTW, if I was going to sysgen-geek out on something and go for greater detail, it would be on the PFZ table rather than a planetary mass table, since I think that there's more "bang for the buck" in doing so. There's something kinda neat about being able to say that your binary system is a G3-K6 binary, rather than a Yellow-Orange binary.

So anyways, I don't want to come down hard on you, Vandervecken, for being a uber-sysgen geek. And I don't want to discourage your valued contributions. I'm a sysgen geek as well, though to a lesser degree. But I don't want to put all my "added detail" eggs into the basket of a planetary mass table that doesn't seem to add all that much game value, when there's other stuff that I'd rather focus on that hopefully will.
User avatar
Crucis
SDS Member
SDS Member
 
Posts: 1888
Joined: Tue 30 Jun 2009 19:27

Re: Continuing Sysgen discussion

Postby AlexeiTimoshenko on Thu 06 Dec 2012 21:08

I'm nowhere near as much of a sysgen geek as some of us, but I would like to see 10 mass categories as not all of them are used during the sysgen process. Of the categories that are used, some would be very rare in certain zones, but if they do show up it adds flavor to a star system without needing to proceed to the anomaly system tables.
Charles Rosenberg.

Alexei Timoshenko is the name of my protagonist in the fanfics, although I wish it could have been me.
AlexeiTimoshenko
Fleet Admiral
Fleet Admiral
 
Posts: 1634
Joined: Sun 05 Sep 2010 21:16
Location: Baltimore MD

Next

Return to Cosmic Starfire

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests