Claims of Water Moons[]
We got at least one person reporting a water moon... so some screenshots of ground water on a proven moon would be nice first. As they did not exist pre-Origins since Next for sure. Water moons is an Atlas Rises and prior phenomenon before the changes. Thamalandis (talk) 18:00, 22 November 2020 (UTC)
Odd Changes[]
The loss of part-water planets is also mentioned in the Pangean section so removing it once above is fine even without adding it to history areas. However, removing the valid example picture of a pangean world and declaring that moons can be oceanic without posting proof is a bit odd DDF. Where is the water moon you implied, I'd like to see it. Otherwise it remains "all".Thamalandis (talk) 14:08, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- The removal of the pic was a total accident - I honestly don't know how it got whacked, as I had no intention of removing it. And while I'm here, would you kindly review the Terrain Archetype page and see what you think of the information there? I talked with the author a bit about possibly combining it with this page. What think you? Thanks... Ddfairchild (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- The initial Atlas Rises terrain page was created by me to especially document these things. Right now it is separated in two area, but this page combined planet types and talks about corresponding subtypes. Combining them would make sense, but let's wait till the archetype page is "done" cataloguing their assets. What I noticed on the stub page is a lack of observation. Floating isles is a planet spanning phenomenon and will be in any terrain type there. This leads to them "changing" terrain types to a special version, most noticeably in ocean biomes (as mentioned on this page). This effect needs to be more clear... but as I said the final wording and explanations can be done when the archetypes are collected. Let them grow separately for now until we think they are ready to merge.Thamalandis (talk) 17:16, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
- The removal of the pic was a total accident - I honestly don't know how it got whacked, as I had no intention of removing it. And while I'm here, would you kindly review the Terrain Archetype page and see what you think of the information there? I talked with the author a bit about possibly combining it with this page. What think you? Thanks... Ddfairchild (talk) 15:09, 15 September 2019 (UTC)
Difference between Continental and Ocean[]
What exactly is the difference between the "Continental" and the "Ocean" type? There aren't any planets that are only islands, every planet has a bigger connected landmass somewhere (I count the semi-oceanic type as a connected landmass as well). The page also doesn't have any examples of an "Ocean" type planet, it only has examples for continental planets. Lenni (talk) 16:49, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- There are "true" archipelagos. Which would classify as semi-oceanic and the closest to true ocean planets. Those planets do not have a bigger landmass equivalent to at least Australia. It would not be a continental planet and there is no connected landmass. Semi-oceanic are neither from space (shows many islands near each other all around the planet) nor on land a truly connected landmass. If you want to count it like that fine, but it isn't. Good luck convincing the majority here.
- "True" ocean worlds might exist, but I personally didn't look for one or confirm one. It might even be hardcoded not to, as such the maximum you can find is a continental with such high water level all turns to archipelagoes.
- The hypothetical planet is one that starts with a GIANT water level and thus only has island chains and floating islands and reefs. While the planet type has not been found in modern NMS, it was possible in the old version where every planet (and moon) could have water and the water level just increased over the basic land generation to cover more of it under water. Currently the "Oceanic" term on the page thus mostly refers to the subbiome/terrain type sorted under it like the reefs or island chains. Thamalandis (talk) 17:13, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- I never tried to convince anyone that semi-oceanic terrain is a connected landmass, I just wrote that so there are no misunderstandings what I mean. So given that a planet that would qualify for "ocean" terrain hasn't been found during the last three years since Origins, that section should be removed, or at least archived and marked as historical, so that readers aren't confused. Lenni (talk) 18:41, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
- The article even states "there hasn't been a true oceanic as of yet" and to be precise since NEXT, Origins just made it very unlikely to only roll ocean terrain since a planet has a lot of them now. Thus after the mono terrain planets were changed (during which era the chance for a pure ocean planet was decently hight... like 1-3% due to extreme high water level on that ONE terrain) there likely won't be a new found in Origins and later unless someone finds the needle in the galaxy sized haystack where all RNG aligns. It's not ruled out Lenni, it could happen. The fact it didn't get reported yet IS mentioned in the text in the lower Oceanic explanation. If your main qualm is the upper section of the article where oceanic is mentioned, feel free to add a (star) behind it and add a remark after the passage about it not being seen since NEXT. That's fine. Thamalandis (talk) 12:58, 31 October 2023 (UTC)