// Energy Fuel

Here I ask your opinion and feedback on specific aspect of the game, or feature I am working on.
User avatar
Ultragamer2000
Newbie
Posts: 11

Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:12 pm

Napther wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 8:38 pm

No. None of this """"early game"""" stuff. Whats the point in a generator being there if it sees no further use? Its pointless. No point in spending the time developing a massive fuel system to something so throwaway garbage. This isnt a Minecraft modpack.

EVERY GENERATOR SHOULD HAVE ITS USE: A Combustion generator for example is far easier to make self sustained on a Planet by harvesting fuel. Its low power rating is not a problem when only running Drills and locomotion. Etc.
Early game stuff should be a thing for emergencies yeah, but not useless. (I agree)
Last edited by Ultragamer2000 on Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:03 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-Ultragamer2000, Commander of the Neutral and Free sovereign state, the Free Commonwealth of Stars (FCS)
#KeepTheCommunityClean

PTTG
Newbie
Posts: 36
Location: A Liminal Space
Been thanked: 2 times

Sat Dec 02, 2017 9:28 pm

Antimatter doesn't blow up planets, though. A kilogram of antimatter would be equivalent to a 40 megaton nuclear bomb; in contrast, the Tsar Bomba was a thermonuclear bomb that had an upper limit of around 100 Mt.

You need much less than a kilogram of antimatter to fly effective missions through space. For instance, one milligram of antimatter would be enough to send a probe to Pluto AND BACK in a year. Even if you're building a huge ship, you really really really won't need to have more than a few hundred grams of antimatter aboard at any one time unless you're doing something crazy like trying to go interstellar at sub-light.

So by all means, antimatter should blow up ships and even make big craters when misused, but it's not a planet-destroyer.

Phoenix84
Explorer
Posts: 6

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:19 pm

I pointed this out in the energy thread (albeit phrased differently), but this isn't SimCity.
There shouldn't be a progression from say, coal, to hydrocarbons, to nuclear to antimatter or something.
That means we have obsolete blocks later on, that's not good.

What I'd like is a system where the different energy sources aren't necessarily better or worse than any other, but are suited to different tasks.

For example, if I want a satellite that has fairly low power usage and low-maintenance requirements, I want to use solar.
If I'm on an oxygen rich planet, I might prefer to use some combustion engine, as it would be more efficient/cheaper option for that situation (being on a planet, with readily available fuel).
If I'm in space, I'm going to want some sort of fuel, such as nuclear/fusion, to run the majority of my ships systems/thrusters, while some special fuel, like antimatter, for my FTL engines.

User avatar
Napther
Pirate
Posts: 49
Location: England: Land of Tea and Biscuits

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:30 pm

Phoenix84 wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:19 pm
I pointed this out in the energy thread (albeit phrased differently), but this isn't SimCity.
There shouldn't be a progression from say, coal, to hydrocarbons, to nuclear to antimatter or something.
That means we have obsolete blocks later on, that's not good.

What I'd like is a system where the different energy sources aren't necessarily better or worse than any other, but are suited to different tasks.

For example, if I want a satellite that has fairly low power usage and low-maintenance requirements, I want to use solar.
If I'm on an oxygen rich planet, I might prefer to use some combustion engine, as it would be more efficient/cheaper option for that situation (being on a planet, with readily available fuel).
If I'm in space, I'm going to want some sort of fuel, such as nuclear/fusion, to run the majority of my ships systems/thrusters, while some special fuel, like antimatter, for my FTL engines.
This. Pretty much this is what I meant without all the sarcasm I tend to do.

Obsolete blocks are bad, mmmmmmkay
Grumpy builder of the orange-hulled KDI Faction/NPCs [not yet built in SW...] Image

User avatar
Ultragamer2000
Newbie
Posts: 11

Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:36 pm

Phoenix84 wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:19 pm
I pointed this out in the energy thread (albeit phrased differently), but this isn't SimCity.
There shouldn't be a progression from say, coal, to hydrocarbons, to nuclear to antimatter or something.
That means we have obsolete blocks later on, that's not good.

What I'd like is a system where the different energy sources aren't necessarily better or worse than any other, but are suited to different tasks.

For example, if I want a satellite that has fairly low power usage and low-maintenance requirements, I want to use solar.
If I'm on an oxygen rich planet, I might prefer to use some combustion engine, as it would be more efficient/cheaper option for that situation (being on a planet, with readily available fuel).
If I'm in space, I'm going to want some sort of fuel, such as nuclear/fusion, to run the majority of my ships systems/thrusters, while some special fuel, like antimatter, for my FTL engines.
This.
Also better fuels like antimatter could be rarer
A zero point could be clunky as fuck so you could only use it on the biggest of the ships
-Ultragamer2000, Commander of the Neutral and Free sovereign state, the Free Commonwealth of Stars (FCS)
#KeepTheCommunityClean

User avatar
tsunamayo
Game developer
Posts: 201
Been thanked: 26 times

Sun Dec 03, 2017 2:30 am

Phoenix84 wrote:
Sat Dec 02, 2017 10:19 pm
I pointed this out in the energy thread (albeit phrased differently), but this isn't SimCity.
There shouldn't be a progression from say, coal, to hydrocarbons, to nuclear to antimatter or something.
That means we have obsolete blocks later on, that's not good.

What I'd like is a system where the different energy sources aren't necessarily better or worse than any other, but are suited to different tasks.

For example, if I want a satellite that has fairly low power usage and low-maintenance requirements, I want to use solar.
If I'm on an oxygen rich planet, I might prefer to use some combustion engine, as it would be more efficient/cheaper option for that situation (being on a planet, with readily available fuel).
Yes I think we all agree on that, so the goal is to provide compelling differentiation axis that will add some gameplay depth. Some energy source will still be overall more powerful (but not by a massive factor), but it will come at a cost.
I had several in mind:
  • Rate of consumption, some needing tank to be added in the ship design
  • Can it be harvested?
  • Is it hard to craft?
  • Does the fuel tank explode when hit? Does the power plant explode when hit?
  • you introduce maintenance, why not indeed!
I think it is good if I allow player to spend time to craft a higher tech that will make a ship design more efficient by a few % for the player that love watching theirs stats and make their "ultimate" ship. But it does not have to be the only viable late game play. For example antimatter would require a huge energy to craft, so this could never be a viable source for an autonomous ship or planetary base. Typically for a ground base you dont really care about your stat, you just do with the most easily available source.
If I'm in space, I'm going to want some sort of fuel, such as nuclear/fusion, to run the majority of my ships systems/thrusters, while some special fuel, like antimatter, for my FTL engines.
For this I am not sure if you where implying having to link/route energy plant to system, or just having a balance at the level of the ship but several power-source to be activated depending on the situation.

User avatar
AfterRebelion
Explorer
Posts: 8
Location: Spain
Has thanked: 2 times

Sun Dec 03, 2017 3:22 am

First of all, THANKS for making use of a fuel system. I really dislike magical power blocks, as once you build them, they isolate you from the rest of the gameplay elements. Having to manage fuel gathering, production and refinement makes everything more inmersive. That is why I have to point this out..

Don't add any kind of Void Energy. Please.

This kind of "endgame" way of getting energy doesn't sound good at all, and makes all the tiered system that comes before it just a grind before the real way of energy generation, instead of a good choice mechanic.

User avatar
JRL101
Pioneer
Posts: 65
Location: Australia
Has thanked: 6 times
Been thanked: 5 times

Sun Dec 03, 2017 10:01 am

I like the idea of different fuel types giving different energy outputs for different amounts of times.
You could have a system that out compresses the time the fuel burns for but outputs slightly more power.
So more power sooner but less efficient long term. Essentially wasting the fuel for more power sooner.

My question is what happens with multiple generators on one ship burning multiple fuels?
Image Image

Womble-TC
Explorer
Posts: 2

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:12 am

On the topic of mixing fuels/gasses, an idea for lower tier fuel could be the creation (or "brewing") of custom fuels. Chemical fuel could be made up of a variety of components or ingredients that have different attributes, effecting the function and use of the fuel. For example, one ingredient could increase the burn time of the fuel, and another could increase the amount of energy outputted. This could be balanced well, since if a player used a lot of "ingredient A" (giving the fuel "attribute A"), there would be less space for ingredient B, C, D etc. This would add a lot of variety to to the system, and allow for high levels of customization of fuel types. As in, a short rang fighter's fuel would need to have a high power output for speed, but because of this the fuel would have poor efficiency, and a long range cargo fighter would need to have fuel with high efficiency and a longer burn time, but the overall power and speed of the ship could be effected.

In terms of ingredients, some may be harder to find that others, which would encourage exploration. Some factions or corps may have their own "special blends" of ingredients which create fuels specific to that area. This would allow players, who perhaps have not got the facilities to produce their own fuel, to purchase fuel which will suit their needs (these may not suit the needs perfectly though, which would encourage the player to find better ingredients to use in their own fuel, which they could then sell and transport if they wished).

Anyway, sorry for rambling on, let me know what you think!

User avatar
Luke Skytrekker
Newbie
Posts: 6

Sun Dec 03, 2017 11:25 pm

I agree with others here that every fuel source should have its own niche. I think Void Energy, or any end-game fuel-less option, should be avoided, because it would effectively render all fueled options as worthless. If you can run your giant battle cruiser on no fuel, why bother running it on fuel, or having fuel in the game at all at that point?

Solar Sails could be awesome, though, if balanced right. Maybe they could be less effective than other options, and difficult to use (or maybe unfeasible) in a planet's shadow. The goal, I think, is to make a number of fuel options that all feel viable in their own unique way, with their own unique risks and challenges and advantages.
"You’re Thringmar of Lickimus 13, ruler of Litticrankafranks and Blongmaster of Kralafranghamor."—Crow T. Robot, Mystery Science Theater 3000.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest