Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[Rolepgeek]

Rather than spiral, I agree with Lithus/Luthis suggestion of long rodlike sun. Would this be more acceptable to you Teburshe? And to the rest of you as well?

"I do not...recall this suggestion...but I would be...amenable to it, yes...."

[FArgHalfnr]

"I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."

"I propose a pair of spherical suns many planets orbiting each, with several Layline Portals naturally connecting them. A mortal would be capable of using a portal to transit between worlds."

Urgh. We were about to agree on a idea and actually begin doing stuff. Anyways, We decide how the laws of this universe works, so preventing the liquefaction of half of the planet would be trivial.

As for expenses, a single sun with a torus world is most likely much easier to create than two suns each which their own cloud of planets. The torus world also have both the advantages of offering more usable surface in a more compact area and of making the elaboration of a complex (and expensive) portal system optional. And as a last point, multiple propositions have already been made to allow a day/night cycle, most of which would be relatively easy to achieve, not even requiring a collaborative effort to succeed.

[IcyTea31]

"Counter proposal...rather than second body to falsify a growth/shadow cycle...many moons...Orbit in spiral shape around planet...disc shaped, to cast shadow more effectively...but not completely...growth must continue...

"That is very much acceptable. Considering the basic idea stays the same, I see no reason not to prefer this idea or mine over one another."

Here, This is what I propose.

"I presume the moons are also to move along the toroid? If they don't, this is a terrible idea, as it leaves places without the day-night cycle. If they do, the concept remains the same as in my or Teburshe's suggestions, and I still fail to see which one is superior."

"I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."

"Indeed. Having to devise further constructs, such as the moons here outlined, just to make an idea work at a similar effectiveness to a simpler option, is inefficient and avoidable."

[Demonic Spoon]

"Indeed. Having to devise further constructs, such as the moons here outlined, just to make an idea work at a similar effectiveness to a simpler option, is inefficient and avoidable."

The thing is, I was planning to make a moon anyway, so this isn't a onerous additional requirement simply to add a feature that I don't actually particularly value in my case.

[Rolepgeek]

"Feel free...to create your own planets...but I see little need of a fast cycling growth/shadow cycle. Don't be...hasty. You have given little reason for us to want your day/night cycle. I can see some benefit in it, but with a shadow side already present on the torus world, why should we desire it? You say it is according to your plans...but have you given no thought to ours? It is...unlikely...that we would put such a system in place solely for the benefit of anothrr, no matter how beneficent one of us might be."

"To put it more simply...why should we want your day/night cycle?"

[FArgHalfnr]

"Counter proposal...rather than second body to falsify a growth/shadow cycle...many moons...Orbit in spiral shape around planet...disc shaped, to cast shadow more effectively...but not completely...growth must continue...

"That is very much acceptable. Considering the basic idea stays the same, I see no reason not to prefer this idea or mine over one another."

Here, This is what I propose.

"I presume the moons are also to move along the toroid? If they don't, this is a terrible idea, as it leaves places without the day-night cycle. If they do, the concept remains the same as in my or Teburshe's suggestions, and I still fail to see which one is superior."

"I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."

"Indeed. Having to devise further constructs, such as the moons here outlined, just to make an idea work at a similar effectiveness to a simpler option, is inefficient and avoidable."

My counter-argument to Nilva also applies to what you said. As for your question, the idea was that since not everyone was interested in a day/night cycle, those who wanted it could add moons like the one I proposed over the areas they plan to occupy without bothering those who don't have a need for them with additional costs. So no, they would not move horizontally, only around a specific portion of the planet, and I fail to see how this would make them worthless, considering the arguments I brought up earlier.

[Vgray]

Uztot listens intently to the arguments of his fellow gods, but stays silent.

[Demonic Spoon]

"I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."

"I propose a pair of spherical suns many planets orbiting each, with several Layline Portals naturally connecting them. A mortal would be capable of using a portal to transit between worlds."

While I am interested in multiple planets linked by portals, this would seem to be a flagrant waste of resources, considering the high costs to create multiple planets, and two suns. Why two suns?

[~Neri]

"I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."

"I propose a pair of spherical suns many planets orbiting each, with several Layline Portals naturally connecting them. A mortal would be capable of using a portal to transit between worlds."

While I am interested in multiple planets linked by portals, this would seem to be a flagrant waste of resources, considering the high costs to create multiple planets, and two suns. Why two suns?

"Less boring than one sun. Seemingly the only reason for Torus is because a standard system is boring. Therefore judged as more likely to acquire support than a single star. Single star would be preferable. Less waste."

"Counter proposal...rather than second body to falsify a growth/shadow cycle...many moons...Orbit in spiral shape around planet...disc shaped, to cast shadow more effectively...but not completely...growth must continue...

"That is very much acceptable. Considering the basic idea stays the same, I see no reason not to prefer this idea or mine over one another."

Here, This is what I propose.

"I presume the moons are also to move along the toroid? If they don't, this is a terrible idea, as it leaves places without the day-night cycle. If they do, the concept remains the same as in my or Teburshe's suggestions, and I still fail to see which one is superior."

"I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."

"Indeed. Having to devise further constructs, such as the moons here outlined, just to make an idea work at a similar effectiveness to a simpler option, is inefficient and avoidable."

My counter-argument to Nilva also applies to what you said. As for your question, the idea was that since not everyone was interested in a day/night cycle, those who wanted it could add moons like the one I proposed over the areas they plan to occupy without bothering those who don't have a need for them with additional costs. So no, they would not move horizontally, only around a specific portion of the planet, and I fail to see how this would make them worthless, considering the arguments I brought up earlier.

'Without a day/night cycle, one side will freeze and the other will liquify. Uninhabitable deathworld."

[IcyTea31]

"A day-night cycle places a rhythm on life: when to seek nutrition, when to rest, and so on. It also allows greater biodiversity in the form of diurnal and nocturnal creatures. And, well, I happen to like the beauty of a sunrise.
To persuade you in particular, Teburshe, I say it also forces growth to happen in spurts, rather than constantly. This is a good thing, because, for example, building a house is far more reliable when you have all plans and materials ready, rather than gathering materials as you go and improvising the design. It also brings your precious shadows to the world every so often, though I know that is a weak argument.
To you, Izgamlo, it brings options for any magic you may want to add. For example, you could decide that something only works when a moon is in zenith on a silvernight. If that's not enough, since you seem quite ambivalent, I could just owe you the favour of your support on the idea. Bribery is an ugly word, but I'll help you if you help me."

My counter-argument to Nilva also applies to what you said. As for your question, the idea was that since not everyone was interested in a day/night cycle, those who wanted it could add moons like the one I proposed over the areas they plan to occupy without bothering those who don't have a need for them with additional costs. So no, they would not move horizontally, only around a specific portion of the planet, and I fail to see how this would make them worthless, considering the arguments I brought up earlier.

"Lack of horizontal movement severely reduces resource efficiency, and making it the work of individual gods for specific areas only moves the problem elsewhere.
You seem dead set on a toroidal world, I've noted. I fail to see how it helps you specifically, so why do you keep pushing it? It causes unnecessary complications that require us to throw even more resources at it, even if it has positive sides over some other shapes. For me, it simply doesn't seem efficient."

"I would also like suggest a season cycle once we've decided what kind of planet it actually is, but that can wait for the moment, and is not essential."

[FArgHalfnr]

"I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."

"I propose a pair of spherical suns many planets orbiting each, with several Layline Portals naturally connecting them. A mortal would be capable of using a portal to transit between worlds."

While I am interested in multiple planets linked by portals, this would seem to be a flagrant waste of resources, considering the high costs to create multiple planets, and two suns. Why two suns?

"Less boring than one sun. Seemingly the only reason for Torus is because a standard system is boring. Therefore judged as more likely to acquire support than a single star. Single star would be preferable. Less waste."

"Counter proposal...rather than second body to falsify a growth/shadow cycle...many moons...Orbit in spiral shape around planet...disc shaped, to cast shadow more effectively...but not completely...growth must continue...

"That is very much acceptable. Considering the basic idea stays the same, I see no reason not to prefer this idea or mine over one another."

Here, This is what I propose.

"I presume the moons are also to move along the toroid? If they don't, this is a terrible idea, as it leaves places without the day-night cycle. If they do, the concept remains the same as in my or Teburshe's suggestions, and I still fail to see which one is superior."

"I oppose a Torus. The lack of day and night will result in the sunned side liquefying. Uninhabitable and excessively expensive."

"Indeed. Having to devise further constructs, such as the moons here outlined, just to make an idea work at a similar effectiveness to a simpler option, is inefficient and avoidable."

My counter-argument to Nilva also applies to what you said. As for your question, the idea was that since not everyone was interested in a day/night cycle, those who wanted it could add moons like the one I proposed over the areas they plan to occupy without bothering those who don't have a need for them with additional costs. So no, they would not move horizontally, only around a specific portion of the planet, and I fail to see how this would make them worthless, considering the arguments I brought up earlier.

'Without a day/night cycle, one side will freeze and the other will liquify. Uninhabitable deathworld."

We already went over this point too, you should pay more attention to the discussion, considering it concerns the creation of everything. The consensus was that we can easily create lifeforms that can survive in these environments, and even if you choose not to, the northern and southern portions of this world would be temperate, allowing standard life. Space will also not be an issue, as the planet will be the size of an orbit.


I propose we cast a vote on the issue. I am fairly certain that the majority is on my side.

[DreamerGhost]

I am in support of Torus, if only beccause I feel it would be more interesting.

[IcyTea31]

"I am against a toroidal planet. The unnecessary complications are simply not worth it."

[~Neri]

"Waste of resources. Will not contribute to Torus."

[FallacyofUrist]

"We are at an issue. Perhaps tiebreaker. Simplicity needed. Simple- two planets. Sphere sun in between. Planets orbit sun and rotate. Simple better. Another idea. When a sentient being dies, if that being is virtuous by several gods' standards, that being goes to the other world. Otherwise we take the essence for our own purposes. Odd. I am gaining in complexity."