| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| Author |
Thread Statistics | Show CCP posts - 0 post(s) |
Hepziba
Canadian Imperial Armaments
   |
Posted - 2009.07.13 12:12:00 -
[1]
I say that these things we're mining in belts are not asteroids, but meteoroids. Does this bother anyone else? |
SIEGE RED
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 12:20:00 -
[2]
They're asteroids.
CCP has not invented meteoroids yet.
|
Kennys Zombie
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 12:40:00 -
[3]
Edited by: Kennys Zombie on 13/07/2009 12:41:32
Quickly googling this issue seemed to reveal that the differences between the two are
1) size - asteroids are generally bigger
2) asteroids orbit some celestail body, generally forming belts.
Now if you consider point 1 to be the defining factor, then you are probably correct, however, point 2 is probably what CCP was looking at when they decided they would be called asteroids.
The definitions I found indicate asteroids are generally a couple kilometers accross at least, so that would seem to side with your opinion.
|
RedSplat
Heretic Army
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 12:43:00 -
[4]
The ones in highsec are the debris tail of a brown comet
 Originally by: CCP Mitnal
I don't sleep.
I am always here.
Watching.
Waiting.
Originally by: CCP Mitnal
it does get progressively longer.
|
TheBlueMonkey
Gallente
Ministers Of Destruction
|
Posted - 2009.07.13 12:45:00 -
[5]
I hear that....
but
an actual asteroid belt around a planet would be HUGE and would kind of balls the material worth in the game.
--
If there's no profit to be made you need to travel further afield.
|
Deathvoucher
Quantum Astrogeology and Transport
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 04:57:00 -
[6]
they invented therapy for people like you
|
Komi Toran
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 06:02:00 -
[7]
Originally by: Hepziba
I say that these things we're mining in belts are not asteroids, but meteoroids. Does this bother anyone else?
It bothers me that these asteroids are apparently composed of some kind of exotic matter that isn't affected by gravity. How else could that much mass in that concentration float around in space without collapsing into a single body?
|
Arous Drephius
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 13:11:00 -
[8]
Originally by: Komi Toran
Originally by: Hepziba
I say that these things we're mining in belts are not asteroids, but meteoroids. Does this bother anyone else?
It bothers me that these asteroids are apparently composed of some kind of exotic matter that isn't affected by gravity. How else could that much mass in that concentration float around in space without collapsing into a single body?
They're clearly made of the same stuff as stargates.
|
Joe Starbreaker
The Fighting Republicans
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 16:24:00 -
[9]
In nature, which kind spontaneously grow bigger every evening? Asteroids, or meteroids?
-/ the fighting republicans /- |
Comdrinker
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 18:00:00 -
[10]
All of you are dead wrong. Obviously god made it happen! what a bunch of morons
/s
|
Mr Maestro
Gallente
New Eden LLC.
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 19:00:00 -
[11]
Re: 1), Eve roids are pretty big, for size purposes an itty 5 is 1km long,definitely seen some roids bigger than this
Roids and Freedom
www.oretech.org |
Jita Squatter
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 21:37:00 -
[12]
Heres my take on the issue. And yes, this has always bothered me to.
1. Asteroid belts orbit stars not planets. For example, the belt in our solar system that orbits between mars and Jupiter actually has less mass than most planets. Due to the lack of mass as well as the HUGE distance that these asteroids orbit, you would actually NEVER see more than one asteroid in a belt at a time, its neighbors would be to far away to actually see. The only time you would ever see more than one would be if there had been a recent collision, in which you might see an asteroid that had been broken into many parts, which might sorta look like they do in eve.
2. An "asteroid belt" that orbits a planet would be categorized as a ring. Take Saturn for example. Its rings are not solid and are made up of partials that range from dust sized all the way up to small asteroids up to several kilometers across. THIS would actually look very similar to the asteroid belts that we see in eve. But from a similar orbit, you WOULD see many small asteroids. In fact, i remember seeing an asteroid belt one time that was just barely above the plane of a planets rings. THAT would actually be very realistic.
Later i will see if i can find a system that matches what ive described.
|
Jita Squatter
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 22:15:00 -
[13]
I will pay someone 20 million isk if they can find me a good example of an asteroid belt that sits within the ring of a planet. I would prefer if it was near TMP, amarr or jita. Payment once i have verified it.
|
lo breeze
LB's Hole Mongers
|
Posted - 2009.07.14 22:57:00 -
[14]
Quote:
All of you are dead wrong. Obviously god made it happen! what a bunch of morons
/s
I lol'd IRL.
|
FireT
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 03:56:00 -
[15]
Do we really want whole rings of roids around planets or solar systems?
I openly admit I carebear mine often when I am busy in RL, but the drop in prices for resources and then production would be insanely lame. Either that or CCP would make ganking in high sec legal. 
|
Reya Lightbringer
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 04:10:00 -
[16]
Aren't Meteroids the Tech II Asteroids?
|
Survivor Aid
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 10:57:00 -
[17]
Originally by: TheBlueMonkey
I hear that....
but
an actual asteroid belt around a planet would be HUGE and would kind of balls the material worth in the game.
Watch the stuff from last years fanfest (the ccp vids). There's some stuff in there about the devs wanting to make asteroid belts spawn closer to planets or some such, and actually be huge f'ing asteroid fields.
Originally by: Jita Squatter
I will pay someone 20 million isk if they can find me a good example of an asteroid belt that sits within the ring of a planet. I would prefer if it was near TMP, amarr or jita. Payment once i have verified it.
I think that the above should qualify, so I'll take that isk.
|
Mr Spot
I Blame Chum
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 18:13:00 -
[18]
Originally by: Jita Squatter
I will pay someone 20 million isk if they can find me a good example of an asteroid belt that sits within the ring of a planet. I would prefer if it was near TMP, amarr or jita. Payment once i have verified it.
Hatakani VI - Asteroid Belt 1 is pretty close, and looks convincing from most camera angles. |
Rothgar Detris
The Society of Innovation
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 21:07:00 -
[19]
Originally by: Hepziba
I say that these things we're mining in belts are not asteroids, but meteoroids. Does this bother anyone else?
Actually, the outer space objects meet the classification of asteroids.
METEOROIDs on the other hand, are reserved for (former) asteroids that enter our atmosphere and sretain enough mass/material to reach the surface. Those that burn up in the atmosphere are referred to as METEORs ( from the greek "meteo" = sky).
|
illford baker
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 22:13:00 -
[20]
i wonder if CCP gave this deep of though when they were thinking of this. but i would think that asteroid belts would stretch around the sun instead of just being a half circle of rocks next to a planet, how does it even form a half circle, in which the inner part is not pointed towards the planet? whats there pulling on it?
|
Jita Squatter
|
Posted - 2009.07.15 22:45:00 -
[21]
Edited by: Jita Squatter on 15/07/2009 22:52:02
Edited by: Jita Squatter on 15/07/2009 22:51:40
Originally by: Mr Spot
Hatakani VI - Asteroid Belt 1 is pretty close, and looks convincing from most camera angles.
http://eve-files.com/dl/201224
Good find Mr Spot. I just sent you the isk. If you could confirm that I payed you that would be great.
Originally by: TheBlueMonkey
an actual asteroid belt around a planet would be HUGE and would kind of balls the material worth in the game.
Im pretty sure, it wouldnt be that hard from a balance standpoint to keep things the same, just shift the current asteroid belts much closer to the planet and into the same orbit as each other. Then turn the current crescent shape to face the planet. Instead of labeling them Planet V, Asteroid belt 1, they could be called Planetary ring v, Zone 1.
From a practicality standpoint it may not be worth doing. CCP would have to do this to the THOUSANDS of asteroid belts in the game and im not sure it is worth it for something that is purely a cosmetic change.
Ideally i'd like to see several types of asteroid belts. -Planetary ones like ive discribed. Small rocks that are very spread out, with a variety of resources, maybe including ice. After all, Saturn's Rings are made primary of water. Heck even CCPs policy or respawning roids is not that unrealistic. Saturns rings are not very static, if fact the Cassini mission has photographed very major changes in the ring systems that have happened on a very short time span (As in the last couple of years).
-More traditional asteroid belt. Much larger isolated roids, each one would be several AUs from its nearest neighbor. Primarily low end minerals maybe. Once one was mined up, a new one might be "discovered."
-Kuiper Belt Asteroids. These could be very far away, meaning that they wouldnt show up on the overview. They could be higher in high end minerals and/or ice. Maybe sorta like the current radar (radar right?) sites.
|
Mr Spot
I Blame Chum
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 04:05:00 -
[22]
Originally by: Jita Squatter
http://eve-files.com/dl/201224
Good find Mr Spot. I just sent you the isk. If you could confirm that I payed you that would be great.
Confirmed. I used to live around that area when I first started playing, and was pretty impressed the first time I went to that belt. :)
Quote:
Maybe sorta like the current radar (radar right?) sites.
Asteroid fields are gravimetric.
I think the thing to watch for with smaller or spaced out rocks is that it doesn't make the game tedious to play. Let's face it, mining is boring enough as it is without having to spend 10 minutes flying to the next rock :)
|
Dex Nederland
Caldari
Lai Dai Infinity Systems
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 04:26:00 -
[23]
Originally by: Hepziba
I say that these things we're mining in belts are not asteroids, but meteoroids. Does this bother anyone else?
1) Meteoriods are traditional objects seen entering the atmosphere of a planet (Eve's rocks are not doing this)
2) Expanding the definition to include interstellar particles of a certain size would include those objects that are small - ie 1 meter in size or less. None of the rocks you can interact with in Eve are that small.
3) Asteroid Belts are not necessarily continuous, ie rings around planets are not required for belts to exist. While the Sol System's primary Asteroid Belt is largely continuous and orbits our star, other asteroid fields exist. There are the Greek and Trojan fields roughly 60 degs ahead and behind Jupiter in its orbital path. To limit ourselves in definition of an asteroid belt having to be equivalent to "the" Asteroid Belt seems so medieval.
As an example, if someone mined Phobos and Deimos (natural satellites of Mars) are you mining meteoroids, asteroids, or moons? (Hint: asteroids & moons)
We are in effect mining moons which are captured asteroids.
Now if people really want we can come up with scientific reasons why the belts "regenerate" and why rocks "grow", or we can come up with some technical reason why belts regenerate and change like the beacon moving along the field as time passes, or we can take it at face value.
Next time you want to make a comment that the OCDs will agree with you, I suggest a post more extensive than a single line of text.
In-Game Browser : http://ldis.caldari-made.net |
Jita Squatter
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 05:04:00 -
[24]
Edited by: Jita Squatter on 16/07/2009 05:08:26
Edited by: Jita Squatter on 16/07/2009 05:05:16
Originally by: Mr Spot
Asteroid fields are gravimetric.
Lol, i didnt feel like looking it up.
Originally by: Dex Nederland
Now if people really want we can come up with scientific reasons why the belts "regenerate" and why rocks "grow", or we can come up with some technical reason why belts regenerate and change like the beacon moving along the field as time passes, or we can take it at face value.
I am only stating that rings regenerate and/or change rapidly over time. Lol, i cant think of any reason why a normal asteroid would grow. Thats why i think it would be great if asteroids didnt respawn (or at least in the same spot) and instead respawned somewhere else entirely. That way, they would have to be "discovered" not just POOF heres a new asteroid.
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/051128_mystery_monday.html
Im not sure that it is possible to make mining "fun" but i do think some of these changes could make mining more interesting...
Edit: sorry dex, i misread your post. I though you said you couldnt think of any reason why a asteroid would respawn or grow.
Edit 2:
Originally by: Comdrinker
All of you are dead wrong. Obviously god made it happen! what a bunch of morons
By "god" dont mean "CCP"
|
Tagami Wasp
|
Posted - 2009.07.16 12:34:00 -
[25]
Originally by: Rothgar Detris
Originally by: Hepziba
I say that these things we're mining in belts are not asteroids, but meteoroids. Does this bother anyone else?
Actually, the outer space objects meet the classification of asteroids.
METEOROIDs on the other hand, are reserved for (former) asteroids that enter our atmosphere and sretain enough mass/material to reach the surface. Those that burn up in the atmosphere are referred to as METEORs ( from the greek "meteo" = sky).
"Meteoro" = that which is suspended in the sky/ air
Try not to **** the language that comprises 30% of all technical terminology. (Another 30% is Latin for those that are wondering).
|
| |
|
| Pages: [1] :: one page |
| First page | Previous page | Next page | Last page |