Space destination balancing ideas

[Sasza22]

As for now rare resources in space have the same chance to spawn at any destination in the same amounts. This means there is little value for going to a further destination over a closer one. Rare resources should increase in amount the further the destination is.

Lets say the closest should have trace amounts. Then about 5% at every tier. Going to 60k would bring you 25% of your cargo as a rare resource. That would be a pretty nice payoff for 18 cycles in space and a large rocket.

Another thing are the minerals you get at each destination. Niobium would make most sense on metallic asteroids while isoresin would be best suited for organic masses. Speaking of organic mass the gassy moo doesn`t make sense there. There should be an exotic chlorine nebula location for those imo. The organic mass should host sage hatches and pufts instead. Dust dwarves have really bad resources (regolith really?) so those could have fullerene in higher amounts. Shove voles should also live on those. Ice planets aren`t any different from ice giants. Maybe the ice planet should be mostly ice and snow (and wheezeworts) while the ice giants could have solid methane and CO2. Then add wolframite to the ice giant so going there is worthwhile. The furthest destinations should be reserved for gas giants for 100% rare resource payoff. There should also be a destination housing dreckos and shinebugs.

What do you think? Or do you have better ideas on how to balance space and make it more interesting.

[TheGCat]

Great ideas! I thought the same about the constellation of the planets. In my current game, i haven't a terrestrial planet. Very sad. I think, each planet should be at least once in the game (starmap).

Another thing for me is the hydrogen engine. It's not useful at the moment. U can send it to 100-110KM planets with 2 cargos, but, how much fuel u need ? TOO MUCH (2200KG)! And think about how much time it needs to collect/produce hydrogen! My liquid oxygen chamber is always full which supports 5 rockets, but the hydrogen chamber is nearly empty... the whole time. I have just one hydrogen rocket to collect a 100KM gas planet. I think, they should change the amount of needed hydrogen OR we should have another possibility to produce more of it.

Another problem is that the data cables continuous break. They are made out of THERMIUM! How can that be ? Thermium melts at round about ~2900 degree. That should be fixed.

And another simple question: "Why cost the steam engine 2000 steel and the others just 200KG ?" What's the reason?

Thought u: The petro engine cost 200KG, u can max build 3 tanks with 200KG and 1 Oxygen tank with another 200KG are equal 1000KG steel. How far u can fly with the steam engine without any modules ? MAX 25.000 KM with the fuel thruster. How far u can fly with the petro engine and 900 KG of fuel ?

• With Oxylite = 33.000KM
• With Liquid Oxygen = 45.000KM

 

But u need just 600KG steel!

Change the steel requirement of the steam engine. It's the first engine in the game u can use. Make it cheaper and the better engines more expensive.

Just a few thoughts from me

Another problem is the frozen gases. Have anybody collect such things from the planets ? What can u say about it ? My experience is really bad, because the frozen gases melts, if it left the cargo bay. GREAT!

[Sasza22]

1 hour ago, DustFireSky said:

Another problem is that the data cables continuous break. They are made out of THERMIUM! How can that be ? Thermium melts at round about ~2900 degree. That should be fixed.

They don`t melt when made from tungsten though (highest melting point metal) that`s why i don`t like changing thermium to niobium for niobium multiplying that costs tungsten.

1 hour ago, DustFireSky said:

Another problem is the frozen gases. Have anybody collect such things from the planets ?

Didn`t try that one. Do they melt instantly on landing? I think i would try to run them via conveyor thorugh a hot room to get the gas. I think you still can`t assign frozen gasses to stroage compactors, can you?

As for fuel usage if we used more stechiometric amounts then they would need to add a range calculator to the game. It`s complicated already and while i agree the hydrgen engine should use less hydrogen it needs to be easier to use. You shouldn`t play the game with an outside application open.

[Gwido]

On 31/12/2018 at 6:42 PM, Sasza22 said:

As for now rare resources in space have the same chance to spawn at any destination in the same amounts. This means there is little value for going to a further destination over a closer one. Rare resources should increase in amount the further the destination is.

Lets say the closest should have trace amounts. Then about 5% at every tier. Going to 60k would bring you 25% of your cargo as a rare resource. That would be a pretty nice payoff for 18 cycles in space and a large rocket.

I agree for the idea, not for the amount.

These are "rare" materials and should stay rare. So for each tier, the amount should only increase by 1%. Wich means that the farthest planet can provide around 10% of fullrene, the rarest material.  

 

On 31/12/2018 at 6:42 PM, Sasza22 said:

Another thing are the minerals you get at each destination. Niobium would make most sense on metallic asteroids while isoresin would be best suited for organic masses. Speaking of organic mass the gassy moo doesn`t make sense there. There should be an exotic chlorine nebula location for those imo. The organic mass should host sage hatches and pufts instead. Dust dwarves have really bad resources (regolith really?) so those could have fullerene in higher amounts. Shove voles should also live on those. Ice planets aren`t any different from ice giants. Maybe the ice planet should be mostly ice and snow (and wheezeworts) while the ice giants could have solid methane and CO2. Then add wolframite to the ice giant so going there is worthwhile. The furthest destinations should be reserved for gas giants for 100% rare resource payoff. There should also be a destination housing dreckos and shinebugs.

What do you think? Or do you have better ideas on how to balance space and make it more interesting.

I agree for this distribution.

I'll only add gold amalgam in organic masses and gold on metallic asteroïds. Or maybe on terrestrial planets. It's weird to not find any of these metals on any space destination. :-/

 

And as I suggest in another thread, each destination should have its own point of interest : a randomly selected material in the available common materials on this particular destination, for which the amount will be increased by 10%, for example.

This will increase the interest to explore each destination, even if we have two destination of the same type at the same distance.

 

On 03/01/2019 at 10:01 PM, DustFireSky said:

Change the steel requirement of the steam engine. It's the first engine in the game u can use. Make it cheaper and the better engines more expensive.

I agree with this.

Building the roof, bunker doors and gantry cost already lot of steel. This engine is far to expansive.

 

On 03/01/2019 at 10:01 PM, DustFireSky said:

Another problem is the frozen gases. Have anybody collect such things from the planets ? What can u say about it ? My experience is really bad, because the frozen gases melts, if it left the cargo bay. GREAT! 

I never understand why the cargo bay don't have an automation port, so that we could ask to empty it only when the room is in vaccum.