Fix to Baianus description

[LazerLit]

As reported by DoomKorath on Discord, the description of the planet Baianus erroneously refers to 'Titan' when it most likely should be referring to 'Triton'.

[Zitchas]

As the author of said description, no, I definitely intended Titan.

I was focused much more on the nature of the planet itself than the atmosphere, as well as its proximity to the radiation belts around Saturn.

[LazerLit]

As the author of said description, no, I definitely intended Titan.

I was focused much more on the nature of the planet itself than the atmosphere, as well as its proximity to the radiation belts around Saturn.

Ah, okay. I (and presumably Doom Korath and a few others) focused on the 'frozen water world' and 'tantalizing traces of chemicals that suggest that something more might exist below the surface' and immediately jumped to undersea oceans. Is it worth an edit to avoid confusion in the future? Perhaps...

The surface of this frozen water world is little more than a shattered wasteland of ice and the occasional rock outcropping, but the unbreathably thin atmosphere contains countless tantalizing traces of chemicals that suggest that something more might exist below the surface.`

By size and composition Baianus is almost a twin to Titan back in Sol, and is similarly bathed in constant radiation. However, Baianus is regularly wracked by surges of both heat and energy, and a stay of any length on the surface is likely to see waves of auroras accompanied by glows and sparks rippling across the terrain. Your environmental system strongly recommends remaining inside your ship whenever ion storms are active.`

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

This is funny. People are worried about whether a reference in the Baianus description should be Titan or Triton. It's nice to be accurate but there are a lot bigger accuracy issues then this to worry about. The most noticeable is planet vs ship scale. Another, issue is that there a lot of planet and moon images that don't even match their description.

[Saugia]

Taking a look at a description's contents is easier to work with than large-scale changes to the game's identity.

For reference, accuracy with scale is not an issue in Endless Sky as realistic scale comparison is not something we are pursing for any part of the game. We work with the best we can regarding images and landscapes, but those to don't have to be 100% accurate either. ES isn't a simulator or accurate representation of Sci-Fi, and has many old-school arcade-like elements to it.

In about a week we plan on releasing our Vision Document, which should help define what exactly we're looking at for the game's direction. Regardless, there's nothing wrong with taking a look at descriptions or other cases like this on the side while we work on larger changes to the game at the same time (currently balance changes such as the mass PR).

(Thinking back on it, this could have been just a silly remark, so sorry if I interpreted it incorrectly.)

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

Maybe, I didn't use the best examples but it's just what popped in my head. I wasn't saying that it should or shouldn't be changed. I just found it funny that, of all the accuracy issues, someone even noticed such a trivial thing and even took the time to comment on it. I know that may sound a little hypocritical, coming from me, but that's my issue to work on. I've reached the age were I just call it as I see it.

[Zitchas]

Given that we haven't ever actually visited Titan (or Triton), I'd just as soon leave the description alone.

The idea is to provoke mystery and thought, and imply enough that the player can imagine it. As such, I don't find any small discrepancies to be any sort of problem, but rather a plus. We're not there, after all. We have to imagine it. The play of similarities vs differences can work more on the human mind than pure similarities.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

@Zitchas

Given that we haven't ever actually visited Titan (or Triton), I'd just as soon leave the description alone.

I feel the decision should be yours to make, but ....................well I won't finish that sentence.

The play of similarities vs differences can work more on the human mind than pure similarities.

I agree, but lets be honest I doubt many have even read the description. That's why I found it so funny that anybody even took the time to care.

[Amazinite]

The way this description is structured, the first paragraph should be listing similarities to Titan ("This frozen water world is reminiscent of Titan back in Sol: [similarities]"), while the second paragraph is listing differences ("Unlike Titan, however, [differences]"). A thin atmosphere shouldn't be listed in the "similarities" paragraph, as Titan's atmosphere is actually thicker than Earth's, hence the confusion. Therefore, either we just shouldn't mention the thickness of the atmosphere, or the fact that it's thin should be listed in the second paragraph.

Even baring that, though, Triton does sound like a better fit for a comparison given what's described. Triton has an icy terrain and an incredibly thin atmosphere. Titan, as mentioned, has a thicker atmosphere, and I'd say it's most striking terrain feature is its methane lakes, not its icy terrain, so I wouldn't exactly consider a planet lacking in methane lakes (which Baianus likely can't have due to its thin atmosphere) to be reminiscent of Titan.

Given that we haven't ever actually visited Titan (or Triton), I'd just as soon leave the description alone.

The idea is to provoke mystery and thought, and imply enough that the player can imagine it.

Well we've sent satellites past both and we've had landers reach Titan's surface, so it's not as if either moon is entirely mysterious. If anything, the mysterious implications of the description come from the line "something more might exist below the surface," and the "waves of heat and energy" that move across the planet, not the comparison to any real life moon.

[roadrunner56]

Considering the comments made by Zitchas and Derpy above, I'm closing this PR as it seems to fix a problem that wasn't really there in the first place.

[roadrunner56]

Sorry, I misread the PR. Ignore me.

[Zitchas]

I have no strong feelings either way. If you really want to change it, go for it. I don't think it improves anything, but I don't think it makes anything worse, either. Unnecessary, but neutral.

[xX-Dillinger-Xx]

I still can't believe this discussion is STILL going on. 2 weeks and 10 commenters later and still no resolution.
Here are my thoughts.

• TL:DR: I suspect that this is only an issue for less then 10% of the players. So, seeing as you can't agree, keep it simple, drop the comparison altogether and move on.
• Realism isn't very important in this game, but you are arguing over something that ranks <1 on a scale of 1 - 10. As, I said before, you have images that don't match descriptions all over the place, and to me that is a bigger issue then a reference in a description not being 100% accurate. I know that isn't what this PR is about, it's just an observation to help illustrate the silliness of this discussion.
• If you can't come to an agreement on which Sol moon is best to use for a comparison, then stop trying to compare Baianus to anything.
• The reality is a lot of players won't read the description in first place
• Those that do, likely don't know or don't care to know anything about Triton, Titan, or any other moons. So, comparison to them means nothing. Even, if they do suspect it's description isn't exact, they probably don't care.
• Then there is the last group, the ones that even take the time to analyze the description. When someone has this much time, it's tells me there is not enough, more interesting, things to do in ES.