Collectors vs. reactors - how much do you *really* get from collectors?

[Karsten75]

According to another posts from Virgil, reactors give a constant .3 energy units per second. Collectors on the other hand, have a formula based on the number of squares that they cover. But, and this is a big but, collectors usually overlap one another (you cannot  connect two collectors without having a huge overlap between them). If not that, theuneven terrain often inhibits optimal collection area. So, if you connect a collector off of a relay on competely flat surface, you will get roughly .18 energy units from a collector.

Collectors have the added benefit that they are cheap and also serve to connect other buildings and units to the energy grid. Not all building types do that, for instance, speed relays and storage units do not seem to connect to weapons units at all, whereas weapons units can chain off one another to form an energy chain.

You can build 4 collectors for the price of a reactor, and  if those collectors were producing optimal energy, you would get .72 energy/second. However, if you chain 4 collectors off of one another, I think you lose approximately 50% of the second, third and last collector due to overlaps.  That would suggest that you get in the region of .45 energy from the 4 collectors - assuming you have enough terrain so that you don't lose anything due to uneven terrain. That is still an advantage, but a much smaller advantage. If the terrain is really, really uneven, it may be that collectors are not worth anything except for their ability to connect things together. I think it would be quite useful to get stats on collectors (either when they are in operation or before they are built, to indicate how much energy they will produce.

[TheWesson]

If you connect collectors on a perfect diagonal on a flat surface, you only lose 7 squares from each - about 1/6th.

Let's imagine we're adding collectors one after the other ...
First collector (connected to Odin city) is 45 squares minus whatever Odin City is already collecting.
Second collector is 45 squares minus the 7 square overlap the first collector has dibs on = 38 squares.
Third collector is 45 squares minus the 7 square overlap the 2nd collector is already collecting from = 38 squares ...

... You can see where this is heading.  Each collector (in this perfect arrangement) is getting 0.15 energy; in other words, twice as good for the cost as a reactor (4 collectors giving 0.60 energy.)  (Your computation above assumed no energy being collected by anyone from the overlapped areas, which is wrong...)

Collectors in a horizontal or vertical line will be collecting each 45-10 squares = 35, giving you 0.14 energy each, a small difference versus diagonally.

Another small trick is to create something you need anyhow (drone, reactor, speed, etc) at the end of the chain and then chain another collector to that tower; that collector can then avoid any overlap and will then be 100% efficiency.

On rugged terrain it's easy for a collector to be confined to less than half efficiency - half would be 22 squares so 9 squares on either side of the collector (assuming a hillside) plus the 4 squares of the collector itself amounts to half.  Half is still as good as a reactor, though, and if it lets you get to a broad flat area, it's really worth it.

[rs]

You get 38 per square if you build them diagonally, or 39 per square if you build them one step "straighter" than diagonal. I.e. offset by 5 in one direction and 3 in the other. If you build many such lines in parallel in just the right way, then you can either get a total coverage of 39 per square if you leave non-green gaps (in which case just under 5% of the area is wasted), or 38 per square if you want contiguous green coverage. That only works if the lines are aligned "just right" though.

Of course none of this matters much because you rarely get so much space that this can be done in a way that doesn't end up costing more around the "edges", i.e. the places where the pattern must be violated. Good summary by TheWesson on how to _actually_ get better efficiency per collector.

[Indiana_nic]

All of you made a good analyze, but I believe the most important point is not only energy efficiency...

The main goal of reactors and collectors are the generation of energy PER SECOND, and this is why 4 collectors (especially at the game's beginning) are much more effective than a reactor, even if they're not 100% surface efficient.

At 1/4 of the time to build a reactor, you begin to produce a good amount of energy with a collector, and at the time you finished a reactor, the integration of the first 3 collectors in time will give you an important advance in the game (I didn't calculate the compared gain in energy).

The reactors are useful only when the space left becomes highly inefficient for collector. This is a good practice to get high scores.

[Kamron3]

I think Reactors are .2. This is what I see when I place a Reactor down.

Reactors are better than collectors WHEN collectors have no room left to collect energy.

_k

[Dranar]

I see .4.

.35?

[Karsten75]

Read the link in the first post. Virgil (who wrote the game and thus should be the authoritative source) stated in that post *exactly* how reactors and collectors operate and how much energy they earn.

[DAmichael]

I think reactors are .2, then .4, then alternate between the two.

[Joykill]

I dont think so

Each green square produces a whopping 0.004 energy!  (Doesn't sound like much does it)
An optimal collector will cover 45 squares for a total of 0.18 energy. (Those little squares add up fast).

So:
Reactor cost: 40
Reactor production: 0.3

Collector Cost: 10
Collector production (optimal): 0.18

Odin City optimally will project coverage over 69 sqaures.  It also has two reactors at its heart (bet you didn't know that) which produce 0.6 when it is on the ground.  This is why you start the game with 0.8 energy production (0.6 plus the area projected).

I was supposed to put all of this in the wiki somewhere and I got so busy I forgot to do it.... maybe somebody can update the wiki with his info...

this is a quote from the master himself I'd say he knows best :) just as karsten75 already said

[Aurzel]

does anyone want to argue with our resident demi-god or should we lock the thread? :D

[knucracker]

The whole .2 then .4, then .2 thing.... that was a rounding error in the display for older versions of the game.  Make sure you have the latest version of the game and reactor production cause the collection rate to go up by .3 each time.

[Kamron3]

Mmmmm.

_k

[Commander Strife]

I think that reactors slowly get more energy per reactor when a few reactors have been built, i got a .8 from a reactor but i had about 48 of them.

[Karsten75]

You are probably just seeing some lag. Or are you suggesting that the game author does not know how the game units function?

[Aurzel]

maybe he built 3 reactors which completed close together