How much do you think a Dyson Sphere should produce ?

[Exarian]

I think the biggest advantage will be that it allows you to generate energy without having specialised planets for energy production, which in turn means you can specialise those planets for science/minerals/whatever

This could lead to an endgame empire that completely relies on Dyson Spheres for Energy and only produces science on its planets/ringworlds/habitats, and gets its minerals from mining stations.

Are players able to build more then one Dyson Sphere?

If Yes, large empires will turn near every non-habitable system into DS
If DS is going to be unique Galactic Wonder, then mere 400 Energy is... meh

I strongly suggest combining power output with energy cap increase and some kind of empire-wide bonus for DS owner.

 

[Kliwarrior]

Are players able to build more then one Dyson Sphere?

I understood that the megabuilding are not single wonders, but you can build more of each type.

 

[CuddlyKitten]

Wrong. Level 5 Power Plants require Empire Capital-Complex, therefore they can't be built on colonies.

Fair enough so a mid size planet requires 10 tiles of energy production to output 100 energy without modifiers instead of 9. Huge difference.

If superstructures are supposed to be a way for smaller empires to go "tall" I'm perfectly fine with Dyson Spheres only outputting power in the low hundreds.
It just needs to be reasonably balanced with the rest of the tree then and actually affordable in mineral cost for a smaller empire.

For example:

Choosing Voidborn = enables habitats
Built to last: Tier 1 talent: 20 % increase in hitpoints for stations and ships.
When you build your home you build it last.
Spaceborn: Tier 1 talent: Reduces costs of space structures by 50 %
Our first generation of spaceborn see construction in space as a part of everyday life instead of a challenge to overcome.
Castles in the sky: Tier 1 talent: Stations get a 25 % bonus to fire rate and weapons range.
Our newly staked claim of the stars require novel ways of defense.
The home fleet: Tier 2 talent: Flat bonus to fleet capacity (in the low hundreds probably, this discourages large empires that want % increase and makes the talent much more worth it for small empires.)
Many people now view our fleet as their true home, and not some part of society that needs the support of the gravity-dwellers.
Freed from the bonds: Tier 2 talent: Resources production of pops living on habitats increased.
Work has always been designed by planet dwellers. Now more advanced techniques embracing the limitless capabilities of working without the constraints of gravity and an atmosphere have finally been perfected.
Embraced the void: Tier 3 talent: Fleet and station maintenance reduced by 50 %
For our people the maintnance of their fleets and stations comes as naturally as breathing.
Completing voidborn: Enables mega structures

 

[Antediluvian Monster]

Those are insanely strong, I would pick that always as wide empire (or any empire). In any case, the additional space structures aren't unlocked as talents but as perks which you unlock by finishing talent trees.

 

[CuddlyKitten]

Obviously they would need to be balanced, especially the fleet maintenance. Perhaps a flat "your 50 most expensive ships costs nothing". But what a "tall" empire needs is:

1) some way of growing inside their own borders even if it's not as efficient as getting new clay (habitats, megastructures)
2) Additional defense early game (better military station, also makes good sense)
3) Some kind of military talent in the tree in order to keep up with more aggressive empires. I think ship hitpoints makes sense lorewise and is a good choice because it's very poor for early game aggression (corvetes and destroyers simply doesn't benefit from it) while BB's with high armor and massive HP's benefit tremendously from it late game.
4) an increase in fleetsize. In EUIV small states wanted higher forcelimits that let them mass up armies beyond their size
5) a way to pay for the fleet

Choosing Voidborn = enables habitats
Built to last: Tier 1 talent: 20 % increase in hitpoints for stations and ships.
When you build your home you build it last.
Spaceborn: Tier 1 talent: Reduces costs of space structures by 50 %
Our first generation of spaceborn see construction in space as a part of everyday life instead of a challenge to overcome.
Castles in the sky: Tier 1 talent: Stations get a 25 % bonus to fire rate
Our newly staked claim of the stars require novel ways of defense.
The home fleet: Tier 2 talent: Flat 100 bonus to fleet capacity
Many people now view our fleet as their true home, and not some part of society that needs the support of the gravity-dwellers.
Freed from the bonds: Tier 2 talent: Resources production of pops living on habitats increased.
Work has always been designed by planet dwellers. Now more advanced techniques embracing the limitless capabilities of working without the constraints of gravity and an atmosphere have finally been perfected.
Embraced the void: Tier 3 talent: The 50 most expensive ships in our fleet costs no maintenance.
We have embraced the void and our flagships are now entirely self sufficient beacons of our mastery over space.
Completing voidborn: Enables mega structures

 

[The Founder]

Does it really matter in the end? By that I mean someone will just mod it to 500 or 1000 or what ever. So in the end we will have what we believe it should be just like we have with a lot of mods out there. Unless you don't play with mods that is.

It does mater if you do not play with mods. Wich I do almost exclusively.

Are players able to build more then one Dyson Sphere?

If Yes, large empires will turn near every non-habitable system into DS
If DS is going to be unique Galactic Wonder, then mere 400 Energy is... meh

It is not going to be unique. Aside from Habitats the rule is: Only one Megastructure per System.
However as I said above: The whole Concept of Habitats/Galactic Wonders is not intended for large Empires. They are specifically there to enable tall Empires, not wide ones. Large empires would spend both thier Ascension Perk slots and Minerals on other stuff then Voidborn/Galactic Wonders.

 

[ringhloth]

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.

Dyson spheres can be built basically anywhere. Mining stations are a limited resource.

EDIT: Well, let me rephrase this. Once you have the ability to build Dyson Spheres, building more mining stations will not be a realistic option to get large amounts of energy.

 

[Vanagloria]

Dyson spheres can be built basically anywhere. Mining stations are a limited resource.

EDIT: Well, let me rephrase this. Once you have the ability to build Dyson Spheres, building more mining stations will not be a realistic option to get large amounts of energy.

The point I was making was that dyson spheres are so mineral inefficient that they are worse than building a mining station around a body with 1 energy, which is by far the least mineral efficient method in the game currently. Power Plant IVs have a ratio of 70 minerals to 1 energy/month, for comparison, and Power Plant Is have a ratio of 20 minerals to 1 energy/month. 200 energy/month for 60,000 minerals would be 300 minerals to 1 energy/month.

 

[ringhloth]

The point I was making was that dyson spheres are so mineral inefficient that they are worse than building a mining station around a body with 1 energy, which is by far the least mineral efficient method in the game currently. Power Plant IVs have a ratio of 70 minerals to 1 energy/month, for comparison, and Power Plant Is have a ratio of 20 minerals to 1 energy/month. 200 energy/month for 60,000 minerals would be 300 minerals to 1 energy/month.

Well, you can't compare it to a mining station very well. After all, if you can't build more mining stations, then you can't build more mining stations, and saying "Man! I wish I had a mining station!" doesn't help you get more energy. And you could say the same to building slots. Habitats make it more complex, as we also have to wonder how worth it research stations and sensor stations are. If they are really quite great, you might be taking the perk anyway, so you might as well build some.

 

[Vanagloria]

Well, you can't compare it to a mining station very well. After all, if you can't build more mining stations, then you can't build more mining stations, and saying "Man! I wish I had a mining station!" doesn't help you get more energy. And you could say the same to building slots. Habitats make it more complex, as we also have to wonder how worth it research stations and sensor stations are. If they are really quite great, you might be taking the perk anyway, so you might as well build some.

"You might as well build some", when they cost 60,000 minerals each and take 25 years to build?

An orbital habitat would cost 5,000 minerals and, when fully outfitted with energy buildings, produces 114 energy/month, so unless each energy building costs some 2.5k minerals it would be more cost efficient to build habitats than dyson spheres. If we assume that the habitat-specific energy buildings cost twice as much as the fully upgraded non-capital planetary variant (which would be 840 [420 * 2] minerals), the mineral investment to energy/month ratio of the entire habitat would be around 128, less than half that of a dyson sphere. If the habitat-specific energy buildings cost the same amount as the planetary version, it would be 87.5. Again, 200 energy/month for 60,000 minerals would be 300. Much, much higher.

 

[ringhloth]

"You might as well build some", when they cost 60,000 minerals each and take 25 years to build?

An orbital habitat would cost 5,000 minerals and, when fully outfitted with energy buildings, produces 114 energy/month, so unless each energy building costs some 2.5k minerals it would be more cost efficient to build habitats than dyson spheres. If we assume that the habitat-specific energy buildings cost twice as much as the fully upgraded non-capital planetary variant (which would be 840 [420 * 2] minerals), the mineral investment to energy/month ratio of the entire habitat would be around 128, less than half that of a dyson sphere. If the habitat-specific energy buildings cost the same amount as the planetary version, it would be 87.5. Again, 200 energy/month for 60,000 minerals would be 300. Much, much higher.

Again, though, when we're looking at habitats, we're also looking at the cost of ascension perks, and we just don't know enough about perks yet to say whether that's a significant factor or not.

 

[ringhloth]

The ascension perk for dyson spheres requires the ascension perk for habitats. If you can build dyson spheres, you can build habitats.

Well, then dyson spheres probably should get more energy.

 

[Poh]

"You might as well build some", when they cost 60,000 minerals each and take 25 years to build?

An orbital habitat would cost 5,000 minerals and, when fully outfitted with energy buildings, produces 114 energy/month, so unless each energy building costs some 2.5k minerals it would be more cost efficient to build habitats than dyson spheres. If we assume that the habitat-specific energy buildings cost twice as much as the fully upgraded non-capital planetary variant (which would be 840 [420 * 2] minerals), the mineral investment to energy/month ratio of the entire habitat would be around 128, less than half that of a dyson sphere. If the habitat-specific energy buildings cost the same amount as the planetary version, it would be 87.5. Again, 200 energy/month for 60,000 minerals would be 300. Much, much higher.

You assume the number ratios are final and they are not. Also you assume the below quote which i'll just add something to.

Again, though, when we're looking at habitats, we're also looking at the cost of ascension perks, and we just don't know enough about perks yet to say whether that's a significant factor or not.

Habitats = 1 Ascension perk
Ring World = 1 Ascension perk
Dyson Sphere + Science Nexus + Sentry Array = 1 Ascension perk

also you cant just go Habitat better than Dyson sphere if they produce more there numerous factors into play. Like how important Ascension perks are, habitats also include POPs which will impact research, which Dyson Sphere i assume wont.
Cost of buildings on Habitats + upkeep cost. The research building had a 3 energy upkeep. Consider increased research cost of POPs and habitat you need some of those to cancel that penalty out.
Etc.
Theres just too many variables to be able to make an educated guess on anything regarding numbers.

 

[The Founder]

The point I was making was that dyson spheres are so mineral inefficient that they are worse than building a mining station around a body with 1 energy, which is by far the least mineral efficient method in the game currently. Power Plant IVs have a ratio of 70 minerals to 1 energy/month, for comparison, and Power Plant Is have a ratio of 20 minerals to 1 energy/month. 200 energy/month for 60,000 minerals would be 300 minerals to 1 energy/month.

Consider this:
Every Star has a energy production of 200. You just need a realy special mining station to access it.

An orbital habitat would cost 5,000 minerals and,

And 100 Influecne to build it.,
And 30 Influence to colonise it.
And the full time for pops to grow (indeed they will propably need 100% food imports).
And the full 22% penalty to reserach cost when fully populated.

Again:
Habitat and Dyson Sphere are there for TALL Empires.
WIDE ones have no use for them.
So calculating the Value of a Dyson Sphere to a tall Empires ability to make planets makes no sense. Even for tall ones, that sphere is easily 44% science penalty less at the same output.

 

[Calvax]

Again:
Habitat and Dyson Sphere are there for TALL Empires.
WIDE ones have no use for them.
So calculating the Value of a Dyson Sphere to a tall Empires ability to make planets makes no sense. Even for tall ones, that sphere is easily 44% science penalty less at the same output.

Hmmm...Where does this forum keep the mega-agree button...

 

[Vanagloria]

And 100 Influecne to build it.,
And 30 Influence to colonise it.

The Dyson Sphere costs 300 influence to build.

And the full time for pops to grow (indeed they will propably need 100% food imports).

And the Dyson Sphere takes 25 years to fully build.

And the full 22% penalty to reserach cost when fully populated.

It also increases your naval capacity. And since the research cost penalty is additive and not multiplicative, if you've already colonized four size 16 planets the research penalty would be a relative increase of only 11%. If you've reached the point where you can afford to build dyson spheres instead of expanding your empire further, and the point where you could actually benefit from an additional 200 energy per month, you have already surpassed that point.

 

[Xoatl]

It should range from 200-600, depending on the type of star.

 

[The Founder]

It should range from 200-600, depending on the type of star.

They ecplicitly said it would not produce different output by star. Because that would "lead to you just building it around one kind of star all the time".

 

[Xoatl]

They ecplicitly said it would not produce different output by star. Because that would "lead to you just building it around one kind of star all the time".

You need to leverage that against what's already there, like a colony, or some kind of anomaly, or special resource, etc. Because all of that will be gone

 

[ringhloth]

You need to leverage that against what's already there, like a colony, or some kind of anomaly, or special resource, etc. Because all of that will be gone

Planets don't get consumed by Dyson spheres. Habitable planets turn into frozen worlds, but that's all.