the point is that a CV can ONLY take fuel packs and fuel packs are ONLY crafted via ores or in a tiny pinch via plant fibers. this means that to get 100% renewability with no base recipe edits (also assuming no playfield resets so strip mining won't be an option) and assuming that you alone mine ALL promethium ore every time an asteroid of promethium lands(one of the rarer asteroids I think) that you have the only option of biofuel or a highly efficeient CV and a network of teleporting bases to hoard all promethium on all planets. this is just not fun. you need to have a less effort intensive method to power a CV. biofuel is silly yes. so is promethium for the turrets and life support. but those are the only options right now. so yes we NEED a third method of giving power to a CV. be it solar, RTG, battery recharge, ect. maybe harping on solar as an example confused you guys. I want ANY renewable method that isn't more intensive than current methods. I like the solar station that when the CV parks it gets a feed of power that maybe only keeps the basic systems online or maybe it can feed to a new "backup power battery" block that allows basic needs to be met when you shut off the generators and thruster/rcs systems
Promethium is not hard to get, not only can you find it on planets but also in asteroids. It's certainly not a rare hard to find asteroid.
sure one time generation makes it super easy to find in early game. but what about once you mine the deposits down? THAT is my point. the deposits aren't forever and on busy servers that can mean energy limits in only a few weeks. so a non-promethium fuel source is needed to avoid running out of readily made fuel. just like gasoline/fossil fuels in the usa. we may have a bunch of stock of oil and such, but we know it won't last many more years. should we wait until the oil is 100% gone before we start making other fuels? or should we see the inevitable issues coming and start investing in more sustainable sources of energy while we have the infrastructure to build the new infrastructure we will need? same applies to long-term multiplayer video game design. promethium was a great starter fuel idea in the early days of the game. but once we started getting into the effectively infinite fuel alternatives like solar we would start to see the need to keep up the infinite development rather than expect a finite(as far as a stable game without admin editing is concerned) source of stuff to last into infinity. I argue for a solar-like(not JUST solar) energy source for vessels as it would be more realistic.
That's where poi regeneration comes in on servers, that will regenerate the asteroids giving a constant supply of promethium in that respect. Only time it won't regenerate is if a player completely mines out the asteroid....by doing that it prevents the asteroid resource from regenerating. If a server doesn't have regeneration on that's not the issue of Eleon but the server owner, and if players on that server are completely mining the entire asteroid so there's not even a tiny little spec left....then that's also not Eleon's issue but the fault of that particular player who mined it completely.
NOT GOOD ENOUGH. it is OBVIOUSLY just a stopgap measure ESPECIALLY since the planet itself remains the same(unrefreshed) this means most ores remain unrefreshed. kinda means promethium remains unrefreshed...oh so your claim mean nothing? the issue overall is you can't argue for a lack of renewable energy without seeing problems that support the renewable energy. ok sure solar is a bad idea for mobile devices, but they want us to have bases anyway so maybe repurpose those bases we only go to for the arbitrary decon limit to instead be power collector hubs? energy storage will always be a thing no matter what type the future uses. so what is effectively battery operated stuff will always be a thing even in the future. this may take the form of a synthesized chemical fuel(kinda how hydrogen fuel cells work these days) but it will always exist in some form. maybe bases have a new "electrolyzer" that consumes any solar over 100% battery. it then converts water in a dedicated tank/container into hydrogen bottles as energy overload is effectively "stored". this makes it store as h2 and o2 tanks in a roughly 2:1 ratio as solar power is over collected. then your CV comes by to grab the H2 and O2. on the CV/SV/HV you have a second block that acts like a 3rd type of power (lower priority than solar but higher than fuel tanks(or basically replacing solar on those types for simplicity)). this type of "generator" is kinda slow and can't really power all those thrusters and rcs's but if those were off/idle the "fuel cell stack" block would happily keep the O2 and the lights on. there you go a mostly futuristic power storage and transfer system that isn't as limited as classic batteries would be. and no solar "angle calculations" to lag your server when flying or to cause issues with bugged panels that think they have more sun or less than they actually do deleting parts of your CV. it is VERY simple to use the existing template system and the simple generator control system to control the rate of fuel cell usage maybe even with the solar capacitor being the block that does double duty as an electrolosys cell and as a fuell cell stack with output buffer just detect what you are placed on and set mode. a script that checks the "Wh" capacity and sees if it has space for one crafting operation. if yes do it, if no sleep. you guys think scripting is complicated but scripting and coding are two totally separate beasts. I made several very complex scripts to manage the crash tolerance of my own game servers INCLUDING the on-boot startup of them after a windows crash. it was easy for me but give me a project where I need to make a microcontroller do a task and then flash it and I will take 10x as long and have bugs I miss. scripting is childsplay and coding is another expert task. but the devs have coded systems that might be a tad diffcult to copy and edit into a "fuel cell controller" but trust me building from nothing is harder than using existing systems in newly defined ways. so yes it is "easier" which is a modifier verb not a descriptor. kinda how people freak out about "safer" in certain electrical systems by reading that word and reading it as if it actually said "safe". those words have different meanings. to condense it all into one simple line: we need an alternative way to power vessels that ISN'T promethium based or much more effort to keep running we also need a way to have our SV's be safe when we land in wilderness on a hostile planet and walk away and thridly we need a much more sensible way to store and deconstruct our scrap from dismantling stuff WITHOUT being forced to fly to a station for that one purpose between EVERY action so anyone disagree with those baseline points?why?
If you have regeneration turned on in a server (by default it's set to on so people have to purposely switch it off I believe), then the resources will regenerate, they will only be gone forever if a player mines them out completely. As I've explained, so when you say ores are not refreshed it's not the case. If you are on a server and they are not regenerating it's because the server owner has switched regen off (either that or a player has mined it all out meaning there's nothing left to regenerate). You are making a mountain out of a molehill.
dude lots of players DO mine them out completely ESPECIALLY with "tiny" and "small" deposit sizes. so you just made a point that forgets the habits of most humans as if it fixed the issue. and even then you still would have to MINE AT ALL.. the argument for renewable energy is to NOT HAVE TO MINE. so why do regenerating non-depleted deposits matter? they don't
You were the one who mentioned they will eventually get mined out, that they were a rare resource. Well they're not a rare resource and its up to the players not to completely mine them out so they regenerate. It's exactly the same principle as salvaging a poi down to the very last block, you do that and it's not going to regenerate.
yes human tendency is to mine to 100% gone and regen ONLY works if you DON't do that. so my point still stands as practically the ores won't regen even if theoretically they could. plus a POI won't tend to regen without a core anyway(at least that was how older regen worked) and the natural strategy to defeating a POI was ALWAYS to dig under it, find the core zone, blow it up with explosives, replace the core with your own or leave unpowered, then loot all stuff either via logistics or by walking through the unpowered defenseless POI so my question to you is: why does the regen state matter when most CV motherships can't easily land on a planet so easy access to the planet-only regeneration systems is not much of an option? the need for non-looting non-mining sources of mothership energy still stands and all these "you can mine ore" or "ore and poi's regenerate" are deflecting from the issue at hand: there is no way to power a CV WITHOUT MINING OR LOOTING. and there just should be a way to do it that way. so again I ask: why should a CV be unable to run basic life support WITHOUT mining and looting?
There are asteroids set up in most playfields that start dropping when all the planet resources are completely mined out. In a scenario you can set it up that they even drop always independent of the remaining planetary resources. I think there should always be some effort involved running a ship. It should never be the case that you don't have to care about fuel or maintenance anymore. That's an essential part of the game and should stay that way. Solar panels were only implemented for very small bases in the beginning to help you out a little. Solar panel calculation in the game is (according to the devs) very demanding on computing power, that's why they are also limited by nummber on bases. That makes me think bringing more of them into the game makes this a lot worse, considering that cvs also move. As @ravien_ff already said, you can configure it yourself to make it somewhat work. But without any support from the devs, if you do so. And if something breaks, it's your problem, not theirs. I'm not against some other renewable power sources that give a little more ( or longer lasting) power for late game, but basically fuelpacks and hydrogen packs, .etc. are pretty much working as they should in that matter. Not a real grind here imo. As for *suggestions* in general, it's exactly like this: You propose an idea to the devs here and they get to decide, if they like it, find it feasible to implement and think it fits the way they want to go with the game. If they decide to implement it, it's nice, if not, move on. You're not in any position to make the devs explain themselves, as to why a suggestion is not being picked up (yet) or developed further. Maybe it even is, who knows. ;-) The way you react here is your making a *demand*, and if there was any way for the devs to implement it, they must do so, or otherwise they have to at least explain themselves why not. It's their game and they decide what and how and when to implement stuff without being accountable to you. I'm pretty sure the devs have read your *suggestion* already. Now it's up to them how to proceed with it. It doesn't change anything or help, if you keep repeating your points over and over. /jmc
so what? that still involves mining my point is to NOT NEED TO MINE FOR BASIC LIFE SUPPORT all you guys are so hooked on "promethium will always be available if you need to mine more" but you keep ignoring the "mining" part of the equation I DON'T THINK MINING SHOULD BE NEEDED FOR BASIC LIFE SUPPORT AT ALL the NEED TO MINE is the problem basic life support power should be 100% renewable WITHOUT mining and looting so please stop talking about ores as my point is that ores (or indeed any fuel)should not be needed for low-level life support power
Well, I do think it should or at least need any other kind of work. So now we have two opinions and the devs decide what to do with that information. Case closed imo. /jmc
so you are the kind of gamer who thinks without forever being forced to grind for something the game loses all meaning? sorry not all gamers feel that way you can avoid the non-grind tech or even disable it if you wish but the lack of an option for those of us who hate pointless or mind numbing grinding is just rude
The devs have stated that they do want to add other power sources and fuel more advanced than a prometheum tank. They have also stated that they don't want the players to rely on solar power entirely to power ships and bases, that the solar system is there for early-game small bases or for supplemental power for large bases. Point is, they haven't touched anything related to power generation yet because they haven't prioritized tackling that mechanic over the 100s of other issues and features they chose to address first. This includes several bugs and inconsistencies in the existing solar implementation on bases. Solar on CVs, transferable batteries, shore power, advanced fuel sources. These have all been asked for numerous times. But they haven't touched the power systems since pre-release, so we can't say they're ignoring feedback until they actually start to implement the changes they wanted in the first place.
hmm ok so they have admitted the power part is on the list if lower than it might be sensible to place it what about decons and sv turrets? have those been explained as to why they decided to block them by default? all I ever heard was logical fallacies like "it will upset game balance" or "it will make x pointless" please update me as to if they changed their position on those points so I may mark your reply as an answer
Decons, I don't know why they only allow them on bases. Probably because they envision all material processing to be done at a home base, and ships should just be ferries for the materials. Regardless, it takes 3 characters in a config file to "fix" that for your game if you choose differently. SV turrets they have already made a concession and now allow minigun turrets to be placed on SVs. That, especially with a shield, is quite sufficient for protecting a parked SV from passing drones and foot soldiers. I believe they don't want to add the other turrets to the SV frame since that would take too much away from the tank role of HVs. Again though, it is easily changed in the config files. RE allows plasma and laser turrets on SVs. And I'm a champion of the #AllTheThingsOnAllTheThings movement, but I do recognize that the devs are trying to maintain some kind of game balance based on their vision. That they let scenario authors rework what they have I believe is them saying "you are free to disagree."
yes the decon part is easy to "fix" but I wonder why they think it isn't "broken" wow didn't know that and I agree very basic guns of ANY kind to defend from drones/troopers should be enough as they won't send wave after wave to non-base targets but the wandering ones will die if the ai wanders them too close I don't argue for that hashtag myself only that some limits are ill conceived or ill argued like the decon and turrets for the longest time where intended to be a "hard no" with zero way to disagree luckily they realize that their hard line could have a gray spot on the line without making things too silly either way not sure but I think I am marking your last reply as the answer so we don't get more trolls or pointless arguements
I could see it being balanced for existing constructors to have deconstruction mode for its templates. You'd have to queue them yourself, and they would process much, much slower than a deconstructor, same as how constructors process ore much slower than a furnace.Worth thinking about, anyway. It would save the trouble of setting up little temporary resource processing space yurts in the warp-in fields of stars to melt down loot before moving on. I doubt we'd see any reduction in the number of furnace/deconstructor sheds around people's bases. That dedicated capacity is handy. SVs already have more fixed weapon firepower than other types of vessels. They don't need more turrets. Other things that would increase their survivability against hostile POIs, sure, but not turrets. If we ever get a customizable avionics and fire control overhaul, I expect this fixed weapon advantage will get even stronger. I see no way of making viable solar powered CVs. Even if it worked just as reliably for CVs as it does for BAs, it's just not practical. It's too inconsistent and too weak. But if solar power for mobile platforms was to be a thing, you could probably do it in a much simpler way. Add a template that makes a new fuel called "power cells" from nothing. Except it's not made from nothing, because constructors need power to function. So by adjusting the energy value of the power cells and the length of time it takes to run their template, you can control their energy conversion efficiency. Then you just need plain ol' constructors on a plain ol' solar powered BA to make fuel. Won't be anything like the magnitude of fuel output you get from promethium, of course. Even a conversion rate of twenty five percent (i.e. spend 4 PU/hours of structure energy, get 1 PU/hour of fuel) is probably a bit generous. Every system has a star, though, and it could be handy to make even a little fuel on site in places. Think about the little BAs some people like to build around autominers or water generators. Now, they can have a useful purpose. Power cells could also replace promethium packs as the fungible fuel pulled from fuel tanks. It could probably help smooth out the early game experience as well if they replaced the promethium pellets used in multitool and drill charges. Not explosive devices, though. Some things are sacred.
