Rename the moon template to something else

I... I don't even know how to respond.

THAT'S THE ENTIRE POINT OF THE THREAD, BRIAN.

Seesh!

If you look at only part of my post then sure, it seems off topic. But, I was bringing that up to lead into my next point. That renaming the biome will just have the exact same thing but as a different name.

Doesn't really matter though since my main point was to agree with ZaphodX's post.

how bout earthmoon = dust .. as it is quite dusty ...

That wouldn't solve the issue of players thinking they can move moons.
Even if a Moon-biomed planet isn't even a moon to begin with.

Renaming the biome would solve that problem.
Renaming planets under <350 to asteroid would only accentuate the solution (and even then, it's only a temporary fix for a half-complete lobby system).

This is an amazing argument, and I would personally suggest the term "lunar" (also confusing yet oddly descriptive) or "non-atmospheric" (less descriptive but has literally the one correct meaning).

Also wouldn't mind classifying smaller objects differing from larger objects. Unmovable can be considered "planet", sizes 1 through 5 and possibly adjust that scale, while small enough can be move should be called "sub-planetoid" with sizes 1-4 (3 halley, 4 halley, 5 halley, or 25 halley)

Just link halley's to scale so that the scale number actually means something. Right now scale is a pointless fudge generating only confusion in the way it breaks all relation between what you do in the system editor and what you see in the lobby.

How is the size of a planet not the intuitive size to look for when asking yourself if you can move a planet or not?
It only need an extra marker so people know where the limits are.

Who are you talking to?

Isnt that what you meant with "Link halleys to (biome?)scale"?

To both of you, giving them different names and then linking their size to it was basically that suggestion.

It would give a name to definitely moveable lands, and a separate name to unmovable ones.

Then, it would give a useful number in the case of halleys. In the case of non-halley-able planets, it would give a "planet class size", which everyone finds informative if it is a "class s" planet or a class "d" which is very small while not being halley-able.

Lunar biome sounds good imo. Then distinguish as asteroid or planet to determine movability. E.g. A Lunar planet with an orbiting Lunar asteroid and an orbiting Earth asteroid.

I also am liking the name name lunar much better than the current moon.
+1

if you go back and read my post a simple solution was provided.....no need for this bickering. re name moon biome. then in planet editor regardless of biome selection there should be a tab with labels, asteroid, moon, celestial body. selecting one locks certain parameters of the editor so little timmy can easily create that KEW hes been dying to see in his system....... because as it has been discussed any biome can be an asteroid or moon. simple selstion tab to lock parameters to movable planets and KEWs makes everything simple. can we stop bickering over something so quaint and move on to greater tasks???

I like your suggestion of planet classes. Currently before I a game starts you can see "Scale 5" but "Class S" sounds much better.

I want asteroid belts. But an "Asteroid button" in the system editor would be a start.

Mass/radius determines the number of halleys. YES, yes... just yes.

Now if only the size of the asteroids would determine the damage it would cause on the planet. This would also need to take in account the size of the planet. Since a 400 size planet would not survive a 350 size moon.

I'll admit to liking "lunar biome" a tad, but sadly I suspect it could ultimately still end up confusing. I'd throw out the simple alternative of "rock biome" or with a qualifier such as "grey rock", or hopefully someone can suggest better than that.

The reason I'm not fully behind "lunar" as a biome name is that I predict it will become increasingly important to distinguish the various types of orbits - to teammates or on casts or whatever. "Hey, are you sending a commander to that $object in planetary orbit or the one in lunar orbit around $some_planet". Nobody will say "moon orbit" cuz that just sounds awkward, whereas "lunar orbit" rolls off the tongue (and is accurate too). With the behavior of IP nukes at this point in time, it's very gameplay relevant too.

We also know that asteroids are coming, and I expect that grey rock biome type to be the defacto standard for those, which could also be confusing if labeled moon/lunar. Yah, "rock" is quite unimaginative, but hopefully someone can see where I'm going with this, and why, and come up with something that folks could actually like as a name/label. boulder? rocky biome? crater pocked? barren? pre-nuked?

That's a nice boulder. < / donkey >

"Barren" from the OP is still probably my favorite, since the biome does triple duty for moons, asteroids, and barren planets of course.

If it were possible to tint the soil...

I feel like biome should refer to biome, and planet/moon/asteroid should actually refer to the planets relationship.

It's never made sense to have a moon biome planet, with an earth biome orbiting it.

Forest moon of Endor. BOOM. :-O

+1 for "Lunar". Just renaming the biome is an elegantly simple solution.

Lunar was one of my suggestions because it actually means " similar to the moon" which is ambiguous but familiar.

My other one was non-atmospheric.

I'd also imagine there will be improvements in the system editor UI to designate which planets can and cannot be moved, and how easily, at a glance.