I want to talk about the energy panes (again)

[Sorrontis]

After the announcement, PF, K and I were talking about the energy output / cost of the pane and mini-pane. The mini makes 0.2 and the large 0.5 energy. That means that the mini is a higher density energy maker. PF brought up an interesting idea (that I think shouldn't get flooded out on discord).

What if the upgrades to energy production (or what ever else) only apply to the standard panes?
hat way, the mini panes have great value during the early development on a map, and for longer battles the std panes become dominant.

[chwooly]

The only benefit I can currently see of mini panes is when you have limited real estate. Since cost will be the same as regular panes and build is based on packet delivery it stands to reason that build times would be the same. If you nerf them before the game is even released by not allowing them to be upgraded they will be a very limited use item and might not even be worth the effort to program them into the game. Instead I would propose having a separate tech tree 1 for the standard pane and 1 for the mini pane, That would allow a little more choice for the player as to how he wants to go with tech and allow the cartographer the option of limiting tech on his map the way it is currently done.

Cheers

[Karsten75]

Bear in mind that nothing in-game has been balances yet, so making cost/productivity assumptions now is probably premature. The idea of an increase in production over time is interesting. So was the idea of a "reverse tesla coil" that can draw energy from "somewhere - Rift space?" for instance.

[Sorrontis]

... Instead I would propose having a separate tech tree 1 for the standard pane and 1 for the mini pane, That would allow a little more choice for the player as to how he wants to go with tech and allow the cartographer the option of limiting tech on his map the way it is currently done.

That's a nice proposal. Glad the post sparked better ideas.

Bear in mind that nothing in-game has been balances yet, so making cost/productivity assumptions now is probably premature.

Of course! I mean, I thought it was implied :)

[Qwerty Quazo]

How about having day and night in-game? Or even, maps in binary systems in which solar production is crazy!

[GoodMorning]

Binary systems? SetSolarGainRate.

The difference between small and large (though V said in the video that it is 9:25 plus rounding) is the same idea as Collector/Reactor. More expensive, more power.

The tech complexity of CW2 would need careful thought. I very much approve of the CW1 system over CW2, as more than ten techs means that one or more will start to be specialist territory.

Also, about tesla coils... Why keep them locked to reverse? It might take time to reconfigure, but it could either do widespread, even destruction (minimal waves, less efficient) or a thunderstrike (Bertha damage, straight line) for power over finesse.

Having said that, how about a unit/mode: Since we often build like structures together, one may go offline to buff others? (Now I think of it, that's halfway to being a GemCraft Amplifier...)

[stdout]

Would be interesting if the panels could be placed only on slopes that face a certain direction (whichever direction the light/energy is shining from).

For example, south facing slopes for energy production, like in real life.

[GoodMorning]

[...] south facing slopes for energy production, like in real life.

That only works on half of a planet. On the other side of the equator, panels need to be on north-facing slopes.

[strigvir]

Why stop there? Why not add a changing climate and atmospheric pressure, which requires spending research to accommodate to? Moving landmasses would be cool too.
Also spherical maps, instead of flat ones, and meteors can randomly land onto it, destroying the structures and cause the movement of aforementioned landmasses. Though it will also require to calculate gravitational forces.

[GoodMorning]

Two words; which are the bane of any playerbase's ideas:

Performance reasons.

[stdout]

I propose we rely on  V to decide which ideas are outside of the realm of possibility as pertains to performance.

[GoodMorning]

stdout: "Why stop there?" was the question I was answering, interpreted as pertaining to my suggestion. Specifically, a map-wide solar multiplier is fast, a cell-by-cell calculation is not. Spherical effects are far less efficient than that.

Plate tectonics could be surprisingly efficient, as it need only occur once in a while. What happens to units on the fault line is a curious consideration.

Climate and spherical mechanics would take significant explanation to players, for potentially somewhat limited return.

[knucracker]

About those panes....
They are sort of kinda place holders right now.  I needed a way to get a full economic cycle, and the quickest way to do that was with structures that make energy.  One of the easiest things to draw is a square... so the pane was born.  After 5 minutes of playing with them, I remembered I was in 3D, so I moved the square up on a post and put it at an angle... just because it looked neat to do so.

So, don't get too attached to those guys.  They work, and they are simple to use.  They have an interesting game dynamic as well.  For something I just slapped in, they work really well.  But I'm still on the search for something 'better'.

[planetfall]

Here's a random thought: flood-fill collectors. Considerably bigger and more expensive than either a collector or reactor in any prior game, and/or or the cost goes up with each new one built.

[Ninja]

Here's a random thought: flood-fill collectors. Considerably bigger and more expensive than either a collector or reactor in any prior game, and/or or the cost goes up with each new one built.

But how would they work?