So ... Dyson Spheres

[klingonadmiral]

Final numbers are final.

What you need to build a Dyson Sphere (before bonuses):

210,000 minerals
60 years.

If you get the Master Builders Ascension Perk they get reduced to:

157,500 minerals
40 years

For the return of:

400 monthly energy

So, in the best case, you pay 393.75 minerals per energy/month.

For reference, the worst Energy Mining Station you can build costs 90 Minerals for 1 energy/month.

The worst energy mining station, available from the gamestart has more than 4 times the mineral efficiency of a super-lategame structure that takes decades to build and eats 3 ascension slots.

And no, leaving the Dyson Sphere at a lower completion level won't make it better, because the Construction Site and the first stage don't produce any energy and are literally nothing but a mineral and time-sink (and costs energy to maintain). Why would you ever want to build such an awful thing? Use the minerals to get yourself a warfleet and use the mineral surplus to get energy credits from the trader until you have pummeled enough of the galaxy into submission so that you can run a fleet that stands unchallenged.

 

[Karl244]

Maybe you play a pacifist empire and you have nowhere else to expand?

 

[mathers]

Final numbers are final.

What you need to build a Dyson Sphere (before bonuses):

210,000 minerals
60 years.

If you get the Master Builders Ascension Perk they get reduced to:

157,500 minerals
40 years

For the return of:

400 monthly energy

So, in the best case, you pay 393.75 minerals per energy/month.

For reference, the worst Energy Mining Station you can build costs 90 Minerals for 1 energy/month.

The worst energy mining station, available from the gamestart has more than 4 times the mineral efficiency of a super-lategame structure that takes decades to build and eats 3 ascension slots.

And no, leaving the Dyson Sphere at a lower completion level won't make it better, because the Construction Site and the first stage don't produce any energy and are literally nothing but a mineral and time-sink (and costs energy to maintain). Why would you ever want to build such an awful thing? Use the minerals to get yourself a warfleet and use the mineral surplus to get energy credits from the trader until you have pummeled enough of the galaxy into submission so that you can run a fleet that stands unchallenged.

My fanatic pacifist tribe prefers to build rather than conquer? Not all feature needs to make sense from a powerplay perspective.

 

[ayrton]

Getting 400 energy for that mineral cost is absurd, not even considering that we're talking about the entire energy output of a star, several thousand tonnes of matter converted to energy per second.

I agree with the mineral cost, a Dyson sphere is an absurdly large building
But I do not agree with this pathetic amount of energy produced
I'll do some math this afternoon and calculate how much energy a fusion plant on a planet exactly produces

 

[BaneINC]

You only need one ascencion perk, as far as I know?

Galactic Wonders
*Unlocks Megastructures: Sentry Array/Science Nexus/Dyson Sphere
*4th Ascension Perk Slot Unlocked

 

[mathers]

Getting 400 energy for that mineral cost is absurd, not even considering that we're talking about the entire energy output of a star, several thousand tonnes of matter converted to energy per second.

I agree with the mineral cost, a Dyson sphere is an absurdly large building
But I do not agree with this pathetic amount of energy produced
I'll do some math this afternoon and calculate how much energy a fusion plant on a planet exactly produces

It is not producing the energy is the problem but storing and using elsewhere. Also cooling it to avoid the sphere to be gleaming hot.

 

[Subcomandante]

You're not only buying energy but also capability - these are 400 energy you don't have to produce on planet slots.

 

[TempusxX]

there are different kinds of play, you could choose to build rather than conquer/power play and who says that everything has to make sense for those who are interested in power play

 

[Me_]

Shrug. It's a vanity project. No wonder it's not economically feasible.

By the way. Are all the final numbers written down somewhere? I don't like the idea of watching all the let's plays to find them.

 

[Alblaka]

What you're forgetting is that minerals are far more rare and valuable at the start of the game, whilst you usually have obnoxiously infinite amounts of it in lategame, since you can't spend it on more ships because your energy economy does not support it.

As well, you could argue that, whilst planet, habitat and orbital based energy generation is more efficient, it is more limited in avaibility, too. I think you would feel difficulties finding enough orbital energy sources to produce 400 energy. Whilst you will always find a system without habitable planets you can freeze over.


Being able to invest my overflowing stockpiles into a device that allows me to field a larger fleet? Sounds like a deal to me.

 

[Vahouth]

Final numbers are final.

What you need to build a Dyson Sphere (before bonuses):

210,000 minerals
60 years.

If you get the Master Builders Ascension Perk they get reduced to:

157,500 minerals
40 years

For the return of:

400 monthly energy

So, in the best case, you pay 393.75 minerals per energy/month.

For reference, the worst Energy Mining Station you can build costs 90 Minerals for 1 energy/month.

The worst energy mining station, available from the gamestart has more than 4 times the mineral efficiency of a super-lategame structure that takes decades to build and eats 3 ascension slots.

And no, leaving the Dyson Sphere at a lower completion level won't make it better, because the Construction Site and the first stage don't produce any energy and are literally nothing but a mineral and time-sink (and costs energy to maintain). Why would you ever want to build such an awful thing? Use the minerals to get yourself a warfleet and use the mineral surplus to get energy credits from the trader until you have pummeled enough of the galaxy into submission so that you can run a fleet that stands unchallenged.

I don't see it that way.
In my eyes it looks like a 60 year old investment with a total cost of 210000 minerals. This means that the monthly mineral cost for that period is 210000/60/12=292 minerals/month for a gain of 400 energy/month.
Seems like a win to me.

 

[Me_]

I don't see it that way.
In my eyes it looks like a 60 year old investment with a total cost of 210000 minerals. This means that the monthly mineral cost for that period is 210000/60/12=292 minerals/month for a gain of 400 energy/month.
Seems like a win to me.

The point is that it would be a better investment to build tonnes of mining stations. But then, there are only so many energy mining stations that can be build. By sacrificing a single star one can not bother with conquering/colonizing a dozen systems for the energy income.

So, for me, simply an option that may or may not be a good deal depending on the circumstances.

 

[Dreagon]

It also makes a system that used to produce maybe a handful of resources way more useful. Sure, it might not be efficient but it's more efficient than not being able to build anything at all.

 

[klingonadmiral]

Maybe you play a pacifist empire and you have nowhere else to expand?

Ethos-shift away from Pacifist.

My fanatic pacifist tribe prefers to build rather than conquer? Not all feature needs to make sense from a powerplay perspective.

The flagship-feature of the expanion should not be only viable for fringe-playstyles, however. I have no problems with hive-minds being mediocre as they are very much a side-feature of the expansion. But mega-structures and the Dyson SPhere especially have been heavily featured in promotional material., and that they suck for anything but a decidely mediocre playstyle (because think about it, that someone like a Dyson Sphere is even viable for a strict Pacifist Empire shows how awful they are - if only Federations weren't such a waste of time)

You only need one ascencion perk, as far as I know?

Galactic Wonders
*Unlocks Megastructures: Sentry Array/Science Nexus/Dyson Sphere
*4th Ascension Perk Slot Unlocked

To take Galactic Wonder you need to take Voidborn (the one that unlocks Habitats) and you really, really should consider taking Master Builders (+33% build speed, -25% cost).

You're not only buying energy but also capability - these are 400 energy you don't have to produce on planet slots.

Solution: Get more planets.

What you're forgetting is that minerals are far more rare and valuable at the start of the game, whilst you usually have obnoxiously infinite amounts of it in lategame, since you can't spend it on more ships because your energy economy does not support it.

Trade Enclaves are your friend. Also, why not instead build Ring Worlds? They take a bit longer to build, but are vastly cheaper coming in at a mere 110k minerals. 2 segments fully devoted to energy should handily out-produce a Dyson Sphere at the fraction of the cost (and it becomes absurd once repeatable techs come into play).

 

[Vahouth]

The point is that it would be a better investment to build tonnes of mining stations. But then, there are only so many energy mining stations that can be build. By sacrificing a single star one can not bother with conquering/colonizing a dozen systems for the energy income.

So, for me, simply an option that may or may not be a good deal depending on the circumstances.

If you take into account the cost of man hours needed, your hours, to micromanage the constructors in order to build all those stations, then it's not worth it. Especially if your minerals can afford it.
I don't know about you, but my time is precious.

 

[Tsuihousha]

I mean of course it's a better investment go build an infinite number of mining stations but there aren't an infinite number of energy sources.

All these mega structures, habitats aside because they are pretty reasonably priced, are mostly ultra late game projects you just do because you feel like it. The D sphere and the Spy Station are the two that are arguably decent. The giant research thing is straight up under tuned as fuck and the ring world is way less efficient than just habitat spamming.

 

[MGoods]

Conquest will always be more efficient than building, it's supposed to be. Even expansion should always be better as you are "consuming" a finite resource, space. If you just chill and build tall it's for a specific reason, either playstyle, RP, or something constraining you.

Also, remember you are getting that energy without increasing your food consumption, consumer goods consumption or increasing tech costs. On the other hand, you don't gain fleet cap.

Also, fanatical purifiers can't use enclaves.

EDIT: I should note that that second last point doesn't make it as valuable as more planets, again conquest and expansion are better, it's just noting that those are mitigating factors.

 

[MA1984]

I would agree that cost/efficiency ratio is not high enough for the Dyson Sphere but if You take into account increased research maulus for more pops producing 400 energy, its worth it.

 

[MA1984]

Also, fanatical purifiers can't use enclaves.

Seriously? Are you sure of that? Could You post a source of that information?

 

[NovaMotarMG]

Getting 400 energy for that mineral cost is absurd, not even considering that we're talking about the entire energy output of a star, several thousand tonnes of matter converted to energy per second.

I agree with the mineral cost, a Dyson sphere is an absurdly large building
But I do not agree with this pathetic amount of energy produced
I'll do some math this afternoon and calculate how much energy a fusion plant on a planet exactly produces

Trying to put a realistic number of the returning EC would be absurd. It would be to unbalanced if a empire would get thousands of EC.