Due to a calculation error, I had to make a gigantic storage facility out of multiple tanks. I expected a volume 10 times smaller.

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/ugc/5166011153098598/19D650A10667A6EFE4B3C7415557E89800E2BE4B/

Yes, the tank can store 500 gas and each recipe takes 10 for mercury rod or 20 for cobalt etc.

Easier to calculate would be to make max 100 and each recipe cost fraction like 1 and 2.
I will think to simplify numbers while keeping it challenging.

Any thoughts on using the fusion (1000 power points) on a planetoid with dozens of gas sources?

I've anticipate using a couple of fusion reactors on such a planetoid by creating a blueprint with multiple storage of fusion fuel, polymer.

See my guide's Threshold-Fusion and Skill-Polymer sections.

A typical gas field has a volume of 5,000. To store this amount, 100 tanks are needed (5000*10/500). But there are usually more fields. To completely collect the gas harvest, sometimes a thousand tanks are needed. This is very strange and inconvenient.

The problem is that 5000 is actually 50000 because mining is done at 10 units each cycle, but the total amount is reduced by 1.

It's better to either decrease the deposit amount or increase the tank amount. Or at least make it so that the total amount decreases by 10, not 1, because it confuses the player.

Otherwise, the player has no incentive to look for new deposits, because one rich planetoid will be enough for all his possible needs. The only thing that may not be enough uranium to produce many tanks.

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/ugc/5166736105344853/8B554969592DD3DA6AEEEA0AD542F7F34548B921/

after approximately 25 hours of play time

https://gtm.steamproxy.vip/ugc/5166736105883620/DD8A2BAF0E9E8E3EC63571837985A3D6F135D734/

Overall I think the gas comes too late, the game gets noticeably duller after the first stargate, a lot of investment for dubious results.

As for the nuclear reactor, I think it's useless because solar panels don't require any fuel, and the only problem with them is that you need a lot of them for serious tasks, but this is not a problem because you can organize a separate floor and fill it with hundreds of panels.

I think the player gets the panels too early, because it's a gamechanger

Yes, I agree.

Do you guys have suggestions to balance better solar panels? I also don't want to overcomplicate the system.

What I have in mind:
1) having some stars and calculating the distance to the nearest star, so efficiency changes when you move
2) solar panels are not working if there is something directly on top, so you need big flat surface
3) solar panels require maintenance, due to space dust, cleaning etc

Originally posted by AstroColony:

Yes, I agree.

Do you guys have suggestions to balance better solar panels? I also don't want to overcomplicate the system.

What I have in mind:
1) having some stars and calculating the distance to the nearest star, so efficiency changes when you move
2) solar panels are not working if there is something directly on top, so you need big flat surface
3) solar panels require maintenance, due to space dust, cleaning etc

I can see #2 being the best option as unless people are willing to make a very large flat platform on their base this will limit their use to early game more only unless they become later tech.

Seeing how uranium rods are easy enough to gather in large amounts and this will encourage people to dock with more planetoids in early game to gather them until people unlock fusion as that can be something you can fuel on your own.

You could even add some asteroids after the first universe to have some uranium in them to require less work to fuel your nuclear reactors as you probably will still be using them for a time there.

Right now as long as power management doesn't become a major hassle that you constantly have to micromanage it by constantly mining planetoids in later game it shouldn't be too bad once you switch off the solar panels for other power solutions that you can automate.

if you break the mechanics of using panels I think the player will prefer to get energy from renewable sources, either a carbon reactor or a fusion reactor. The carbon reactor only requires the work of a catcher, and the fusion reactor requires a tree plantation. In both cases, there will be no resource that can run out.

My playstyle does not imply haste, if the fuel runs out, then I will rush to finish everything, and the game can really be completed in just a day, if you know exactly what to do.

I like option 3: maintenance. Let the now useless engineer do it. For him, the player will have to make all the panels accessible so that he can get to them. And the stars are just a small obstacle, like a shadow, because there is a lot of empty space. You can always make a huge roof.

There is also an idea that the panels should be bulky and expensive, and gold should be rare. But no one will force me to use uranium as fuel, unless a catcher chooses to catch it instead of gold.

Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to change solar from how it is. It's nice, efficient, and works to let me get on with my vast mining complexes. If I had to go back to nuclear (which I've tried) or fusion, it would be a massive headache. Because it's easy to say that you just need a tree farm for fusion, but by Universe III you need a vast amount of polymer just to fuel research, I never find that we have enough to spare for that. It's enough of a pain to come up with enough to pay for gas extractors.


I like the idea of giving the engineer something to do, though. That guy sits around eating our food and basically does something once every few hours. Let me have a few of them climbing around the terrifying gantries with our solar arrays.