How much do you think a Dyson Sphere should produce ?

[Playwars]

The question is in the title, how much do you think a Dyson Sphere should produce ? In terms of gameplay balance, I mean.
And before you yell at me, I know that the numbers showed in the stream aren't final, this is just to see what people think.
Right now, a Dyson Sphere costs 60k minerals and takes 25 years to build (10k for the construction site and each level, 5 levels in total, including the frame, each taking 5 years to complete, but both the time and the mineral requirements can be lowered via an ascencion perk) and produces 200 energy per month, none of those numbers are final.
So, what do you think the Dyson Sphere should produce compared to these costs ? Or would you change the said costs ?

 

[Playwars]

Personnaly, I'm fine with the costs and the time, however, I think that 200 energy per month is too low, for example, 2 orbital habitats maxed out with energy generators and another with food to sustain them would be able to produce more than this for less than 20k minerals, which is why I think it would be more balanced if a Dyson Sphere produced around 800 energy per month, it's mineral used/energy produced ratio would be of 75, which is equivalent to a maxed out power plant on a planet (all upgrade costs cumulated, assuming you started with the TIer I and not the basic power plant).
And I'm not even counting the fact that building a Dyson Sphere might attract unwanted attention, make people go on war with you, or that it sterilizes the system when it's finished.
What do you think ?

 

[Esurnir]

Personally I don't know how to balance. However certainly above or comparable to the ammount generated by the FE energy district I can't remember exactly how much it make but it should feel like you achieved something of that scope.

 

[Scourgeclaw]

Do I even need to say it?

Edit:

Memes aside: I would say logically somewhere around as much as the Trade District from a Materialist FE ring segment-- which if memory serves, sits around the 200Ec mark

honestly 200 feels about right

 

[Mcwynne]

Personnaly, I'm fine with the costs and the time, however, I think that 200 energy per month is too low, for example, 2 orbital habitats maxed out with energy generators and another with food to sustain them would be able to produce more than this for less than 20k minerals, which is why I think it would be more balanced if a Dyson Sphere produced around 800 energy per month, it's mineral used/energy produced ratio would be of 75, which is equivalent to a maxed out power plant on a planet (all upgrade costs cumulated, assuming you started with the TIer I and not the basic power plant).
And I'm not even counting the fact that building a Dyson Sphere might attract unwanted attention, make people go on war with you, or that it sterilizes the system when it's finished.
What do you think ?

But those habitats need to be filled with pops that take time to grow, could be doing something else, and increase research time (and make traditions more expensive?), plus ethic divergence and such. But yeah, 200 still feels a bit low.

 

[Vanagloria]

Memes aside: I would say logically somewhere around as much as the Trade District from a Materialist FE ring segment-- which if memory serves, sits around the 200Ec mark

honestly 200 feels about right

Your memory does not serve you. It produces twice that.

It's possible for the player to develop an energy world that produces more than 200, even, if it's large enough and has the right modifiers.

 

[flazeo255]

Since Planetary Administration produces energy in 1.5, take a 25 tile world not included tile bonus and have 23 power plant v and 1 power plant hub 2 would cost 13,240 minerals and produce around 246.2 energy.

Since Dyson spheres take 25 year and cost 50k minerals probally be better to have them produce in the range of 500 - 800 energy.

 

[klingonadmiral]

4000-5000, at least.

Just make it instead of 3 steps from frame to full sphere every panel a single step, with the cost per step staying the same.

200 energy is laughable, you can *easily* get those from 2 Habitats running full energy.

 

[DukeLeto42]

Also remember that Dyson Spheres are generating energy without requiring pops, which means your empire needs to devote fewer pops to energy. Therefore, more energy per pop means you can invest more in unity and research, and your increased energy income does not come at a cost to unity and research. Like mining and research stations, producing material without pops comes at a high cost.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Therefore, more energy per pop means you can invest more in unity and research, and your increased energy income does not come at a cost to unity and research. Like mining and research stations, producing material without pops comes at a high cost.

By the time megastructures realistically come around, the research time increase from planets and pops has turned completely negligible.

 

[Vanagloria]

Also remember that Dyson Spheres are generating energy without requiring pops, which means your empire needs to devote fewer pops to energy. Therefore, more energy per pop means you can invest more in unity and research, and your increased energy income does not come at a cost to unity and research. Like mining and research stations, producing material without pops comes at a high cost.

A mining station costs 90 minerals. If you put one around a body that produces 1 energy and 1 mineral, the lowest amount possible other than zero, that's a ratio of 90 minerals to 1 energy/month. A fully completed dyson sphere costs 60,000 minerals and produces 200 energy per month, with a ratio of 300 minerals to 1 energy/month. It also requires two Ascension Perks to unlock. It also renders uninhabitable every planet in the system. It also takes 25 years to build.

Unless the numbers change significantly, it is the worst mineral to energy production ratio of any energy producing structure. It's 3 times worse than the current worst.

 

[klingonadmiral]

One thing to keep in mind is that planets and pops cause tech cost increase.

The way tech costs increase, this is completely negligible however. They are an additive modifier, thus the larger your empire gets the less impactful the bonus becomes.

By the mid of the 24th century, you easily run like +1500% tech costs from planets and pops. Adding even a fully manned habitat gives +22% tech cost (+10% from planet, +12% from pops).

Making the malus not +1830%, but +1522%. An effective cost increase of 1.4% ... crippling I say.

 

[GAGA Extrem]

I dunno, but I like the idea of freeing up pops from power plants to turn their tiles into Mines (or Science, if that should still be an issue at that point).

Given the current production ratios, a sphere would probably free ~15-25 tiles, which would come down to... something around 100-200 Minerals production. Result would probably depend a lot on deposits. Swapping out Power Plants next to the Colony Hub would be particularly strong.

 

[klingonadmiral]

I dunno, but I like the idea of freeing up pops from power plants to turn their tiles into Mines (or Science, if that should still be an issue at that point).

I think the really problem for Dyson Spheres (and maybe als the Science Hub) will be:

Why not simply build ringworlds instead? A 4-section ring can produce about 1000 energy, easily if you use Fanatically Individualist Synths and have a few global energy modifiers (Space Amoebas, Wraith, Stock Exchange, plus at least one rare anomaly) for your empire. With that energy-ring you can then feed an empire worth of mineral, food and research planets. Especially if you run Prosperity traditions (which at least for me personally are a no-brainer).

Habitats also seem like a great way to keep tech costs low(ish), the 4/4/4 labs are equal to a 16-18ish size planet full with labs, but save a bit population.

By the power invested in my by my magic crystal ball I hereby predict that the Banks meta will (generally) see Habitats for Science and Planets/Rings for everything else.

Another thing that works against the Dyson sphere is that it, like all off-world resource producers, is unaffected by global yield bonuses. So the later in the lategame you go, the weaker the Dyson Sphere becomes compared to the repeatable-boosted planetside power-generators.

 

[Playwars]

I dunno, but I like the idea of freeing up pops from power plants to turn their tiles into Mines (or Science, if that should still be an issue at that point).

Given the current production ratios, a sphere would probably free ~15-25 tiles, which would come down to... something around 100-200 Minerals production. Result would probably depend a lot on deposits. Swapping out Power Plants next to the Colony Hub would be particularly strong.

But does it really matters when building habitats will produce more power for lower costs ? This way you still have your energy, and you can specialise your planets into minerals, plus you don't have to sterilize an entire solar system.

 

[Tim_Ward]

Er, I dunno. Take an empty 25 tile world and fill it with power plants.

1) Colony ship - 350 minerals
2) government buildings - 850 minerals
3) 24 level 4 power thingies - 6480

Total minerals spend: 7680

Energy output - 144, which is 53 minerals spent per monthly energy credit

I can't be bothered to work out totals from bonuses, tile resourecs etc.

vs dyson sphere 60k for 200, 300 minerals spent per monthly energy credit

I would be happy if a dyson sphere was, say, 600 - 800 energy per month: still not as efficient as a fully energy specialised planet, but it has several advantages over a planet - doesn't require pops, doesn't increase research cost, no opportunity cost of wasting good tiles with other resource types, can't be invaded, can be placed in the most otherwise worthless of systems etc.

What you'd do with this bonanza of energy when you're not at war is, of course, another question entirely.

 

[Horror In The Deep]

how much do you think a Dyson Sphere should produce ?

When I first see this tread, I want to write "1000"
Just because it is cool number, and seems a middle ground between game balance and "HOLLYSHITITISDYSONSPHERE!!!!!!1!1!!!!1111"

But I thought "Oh, It`s 5 times more than current! It would sound stupid!"

Now, after all calculations given above, I`m starting to think that 1000 Energy Credits is exactly what we need to make this thing useful

 

[The Founder]

I always figured it should be measured agaisnt the consumption of the other megastructures or a fully Robotic empire. That the Dyson Sphere is basically one of hte few things that can power these kind of things.

I dunno, but I like the idea of freeing up pops from power plants to turn their tiles into Mines (or Science, if that should still be an issue at that point).

Given the current production ratios, a sphere would probably free ~15-25 tiles, which would come down to... something around 100-200 Minerals production. Result would probably depend a lot on deposits. Swapping out Power Plants next to the Colony Hub would be particularly strong.

That would be a good formula. If it was not locked behind a Ascenion Perk. Just to get one of those slots, you need 6 Tradition Points. It has to contend for space with stuff that cuts the terraforming or genetic engineering cost drastically. While also giving more trait points.

 

[BlackUmbrellas]

But does it really matters when building habitats will produce more power for lower costs ? This way you still have your energy, and you can specialise your planets into minerals, plus you don't have to sterilize an entire solar system.

A Dyson Sphere can coexist with Orbitals. So on top of whatever energy production you spec the system's Orbitals into, you've got 200 from the Dyson Sphere.

 

[Diezy]

Getting 200 energy from a single star in a system that previously had no habitables and was lackluster in resources is quite worth it indeed!

25 years is quite some time, but even after 10 years, after frame and 1 stage are done, we should be getting more power than you'd find in a single system! So they could be worth it much sooner!