So ... Dyson Spheres

[Slynx]

Solution: Get more planets.

and rise unity costs\science to unobtainable heights.

Trade Enclaves are your friend.

seriously? you never even thought about destroying trade enclaves if they are feeding your enemy more then you?

The giant research thing is straight up under tuned as fuck

isn't it a fee science without rising the cap? oO

The planet won't work if you don't have food from SOMEWHERE to support the population.

unless you use synths

In your example you're failing to account for the mineral cost of buying and upgrading your energy buildings.

it's still less then 200k DSphere. even 2 planets will be cheaper with a right leader\edict

Spoiler: energy planet

there is a modded building (SDA) but other then that it's pretty representative to what ideal energy planet may look like.

 

[The Founder]

Yeah but how much living area does it have on the inside, i'd assume it would eclipse even a ringworld in that?

Nothing. It is a pure solar collector, as in the original ideas of Dyson.
Unlike the Ringworld you can of course still palce habitats around it.

However, +20% is the lower bound. Cosmic Ray Catalysis (Space Amoeba Observation) is another 5%, the Wraith gives 10%, several anomaly events can eek up some more small modifiers, Corporate Dominion Civic gives +10%, Synths get like a 20% bonus. Repeatables will eventually come into play. Galactic Stock Exchange is also a thing. You'll reap heaps and heaps of credits from a properly set-up energy planet. 2 large of thoe worlds will comfortably out-produce a Dyson Sphere.

Everything but the Hub and the Synth Bonus applies to Mining Stations as well. Inlcuding the Dyson Sphere.
They are empire wide bonuses.
Also those synth would eat 1 Energy Per pop. That is 25 Power down the drain.

Not to mention reserach and unity penalty, consumer goods and a lot of other stuff.

Sure if you ignore half the costs and the entire situation, it looks like a bad deal. Wich is exactly why you can not do that.

 

[AndragonLea]

and rise unity costs\science to unobtainable heights.

seriously? you never even thought about destroying trade enclaves if they are feeding your enemy more then you?

isn't it a fee science without rising the cap? oO

unless you use synths

it's still less then 200k DSphere. even 2 planets will be cheaper with a right leader\edict

Spoiler: energy planet

there is a modded building (SDA) but other then that it's pretty representative to what ideal energy planet may look like.

If you're using synths, you are reducing the energy output of the planet instead - which is arguably worse because you can reduce the amount of food your people eat, but not the amount of energy the synths require. Even if you take that away, you spend energy and minerals to build them ON TOP of the costs of what the planet takes.

The two planets needed for the energy output may need slightly less minerals than one dyson sphere, but a dyson sphere is meant to be build when you don't HAVE more planets to colonise. Sure, the planets may be cheaper but you need to have all the requirements and the available planets to colonise.

Bottomline: a dyson sphere is not as effective as planets and isn't meant to be. It's a force multiplayer to allow a smaller empire that is land-locked by other empire borders to expand when it would otherwise be stalled.

It's not supposed to be better than planets because is intended as a solution for when you can't GET planets.

That said, they are vastly less inefficient than people would like you to believe - half of the detractors here assume two fully populated planets full of high tier buildings, synths and the research required for those things to just pop out of the ether. "A dyson sphere costs X, two planets the costs and time involved in developing we conveniently won't mention or count up do the same thing!"

 

[Cat_Fuzz]

it's still less then 200k DSphere. even 2 planets will be cheaper with a right leader\edict

I'm not arguing that 200k minerals without perks is a lot, plus the time is quite big, but that's all you need.

The planetary method in your case requires:

Synthetics - take time to research, take time to build, cost energy and minerals.
High lvl planets - not always available, cost minerals for colony ships and influence
Building upgrades - cost minerals, initially require pops which take time to grow, take time to upgrade
Efficiency factors - require 'the right kind of leader / governor, not always a sure bet. Possibly need to clear tile blockers, which cost minerals and energy.

This is also not factoring in unity, food or actual mineral production, which you'd need right from the get go. But this is a viable strategy.

Sure, you'll need a lot of minerals to get a Dyson sphere, but it's also a viable strategy. You could trade minerals with other empires. You always need minerals so you can focus on it and stay tall. Staying tall builds unity quicker, unlocking the perks you need sooner, along with some that potentially increase your mineral output.

What I'm trying to say is both are viable, but it depends on the context you are playing in.

 

[Slynx]

synths require.

synth require only 1 energy. if you'll replace modded building on my screenshot with energy plant and give energy to the capital - you'll have enough to sustain all synths on a planet

 

[AndragonLea]

Of course you do, but you're STILL ignoring what I said. You took only one requirement out of a good dozen to get a planet together and into the shape you depicted on your screenshot (my comment that you need food somewhere) and countered it with "you could also have synths", as if that invalidated all the other stuff you need to get to that end result. I told you in return that having synths just CHANGES one of the many requirements slightly.

Now instead of needing a food planet somewhere to feed your pops and fuel their growth, you instead need the research for robots, droids, synths, pay for the building of 25 synths (25 times 150 minerals and 50 energy), wait for the SYNTHS instead of the pops to grow and pay 1 energy instead of 1 or less food per synth.

It doesn't make the situation better at all.

 

[The Founder]

1. Habitats, Megastructures and Ringworlds are for TALL EMPIRES.
If you play tall - by intention or nessesity - you soon run out of systems to take control off.
Specifically for that case, Megastructures are there to add artificial habitats and other Mineral/Playtime Sinks.
If you play wide, of course getting new planets will be more cost effective then building a set of superlarge planets or a Dyson Sphere. You will not even have the ascension perk slots to use on building megastructures, much less the resources to afford it.

2. Ringworld might beat a Dyson Sphere in income. Does not mater:
Ringworld capable Systems are Dyson Capable Systems that ALSO have a lot of planets to use for building material.
It is conceivable that you have 10-20 times as many systems that could support a D-Sphere as ones where you can put a Ringworld.
Black Holes, Pulsars and Neutron stars are suiteable for neither of the two.

3. Galactic Wonders also allows other structures. Indeed it allows the following: Sentry Array, Science Nexus, Dyson Sphere.
And of course you need Habitat Perk before you can even think about either of the two perks

4. That Miningstations are more effective does not mater. You are playing Tall to even have the discussion. You don't have places to place mining stations anymore when you even get close to Ringworlds or Dyson Spheres. Or you do not need them yet.

5. More pops and planets - inlcuding Ringworlds - also means more Unity and Science penalty. Neither Dyson Sphere nor Science Nexus have any limitation. You are palying tall, hence it maters.

6. Empirewide bonuses affect the Dyson Sphere as well. This includes any Civic, Ethics Bonus, Traditions, Wraith Killer, Cosmic Ray Catalysts, Galactic Stock Exchanges and especially the repeatable technologies.

 

[scaper12123]

Yeah ok. So what's better: Having a Dyson sphere, having "technically" superior power plants, or having power plants AND a Dyson sphere?

 

[The Founder]

Yeah ok. So what's better: Having a Dyson sphere, having "technically" superior power plants, or having power plants AND a Dyson sphere?

Irrelevant.

You can not colonise a system with a Dyson Sphere. the planets are to cold (there might be an exception fo Synths, but then they would also fit on any barren world).
Habitats have access to a special solar Collector, NOT the normal planet powerplants. And with all likelyhood around a Dysoned Star you can not use them anymore then around a black hole.
If you can get a planet more, you don not need the Ascension Perks for Habitats or Dyson Spheres. There are more usefull ones for Planets like Master of Nature, two of the Ascension Paths, Ethics Convergence, Core System Limit and, and, and....

 

[AndragonLea]

Yeah ok. So what's better: Having a Dyson sphere, having "technically" superior power plants, or having power plants AND a Dyson sphere?

Hypothetically, having both of course.

In fact, you'd actually almost be REQUIRED to have both eventually, because a dyson sphere is a pretty late addition to any empire (for the reason that you wouldn't NEED a dyson sphere early, without first having the research, mineral income and need for a fleet to support with it). That means you probably have the tech for advanced power plants but do not have access to planets to build them on.

 

[Slynx]

25 synths (25 times 150 minerals and 50 energy)

it's only 3750 energy and 1250 minerals. you can covert energy to time. and add minerals to the final cost.

unity may be just ignored. cuz if you're building a sphere it means you already filled few tradition trees..and the cost increase may be unnoticeable.
science - yeah. but unless you're tall you'll have penalty to science anyway...and with more pops it tend to be less noticeable =)
Efficiency factors are not mandatory. in some cases you can have a good cut to remove blocker or building cost..but if not - any other lvl5 leader will still be beneficial.
High lvl planets - not really. ever heard about conquest? if you're lucky enough and your game have something like sanctuary or materialist FE - you'll have 100-slot ringworld without any influence\colony ships
Building upgrades - strange argument. you'll need them to have a strong economy anyway. i doubt you'll be able to build a DSphere without economy. or on lvl1 mines
Synthetics yes. but also gives you more profit. all planets will be colonizeable, you'll have bonus research and production, and etc..

 

[AndragonLea]

it's only 3750 energy and 1250 minerals. you can covert energy to time. and add minerals to the final cost.

unity may be just ignored. cuz if you're building a sphere it means you already filled few tradition trees..and the cost increase may be unnoticeable.
science - yeah. but unless you're tall you'll have penalty to science anyway...and with more pops it tend to be less noticeable =)
Efficiency factors are not mandatory. in some cases you can have a good cut to remove blocker or building cost..but if not - any other lvl5 leader will still be beneficial.
High lvl planets - not really. ever heard about conquest? if you're lucky enough and your game have something like sanctuary or materialist FE - you'll have 100-slot ringworld without any influence\colony ships
Building upgrades - strange argument. you'll need them to have a strong economy anyway. i doubt you'll be able to build a DSphere without economy. or on lvl1 mines
Synthetics yes. but also gives you more profit. all planets will be colonizeable, you'll have bonus research and production, and etc..

I'm not saying you need no economy to build a dyson sphere - I'm saying you can't say the dyson sphere costs X and takes X time to build while two planets WHOSE COSTS AND DEVELOPEMENT TIME YOU DON'T TAKE INTO ACCOUNT do the same and then expect people to marvel at how inefficient that is with you.

Decisions aren't made in a vacuum. I could say that spending 8 hours a day 5 days a week working for the rest of my life is less efficient than spending 1 hour a day begging on Wallstreet, as you may get people to donate 20 bucks to you and would only need X of those per minute to earn the same amount of money for less time without taking into consideration that there isn't an endless supply of eager pedestrians that are just waiting to give you their money.

You have to take into consideration why you would build a dyson sphere in the first place: if you either A) already exploit all the resources you have access to (including planets) or B) decided you want to play tall and reduce the amount of pops and planets (with their impact on unity and research) as much as possible.

In both of those situations, a dyson sphere makes sense because cheaper alternatives either don't exist or are distasteful to you.

 

[MGoods]

6. Empirewide bonuses affect the Dyson Sphere as well. This includes any Civic, Ethics Bonus, Traditions, Wraith Killer, Cosmic Ray Catalysts, Galactic Stock Exchanges and especially the repeatable technologies.

Do they? I'm sure I remember noticing that a bunch of effects that boost output of energy/minerals (ie, government bonuses and the modifier you get from killing the wraith) only affect planet tiles and not space based industry. I could be wrong/mis-remembering ofc, but are you sure?

 

[razaron]

I remember Wiz saying in one of the streams that they balanced the non-habitat megastructures to be built around the time the player has already started snowballing. So they don't need to be efficient, since you've basically won anyway.
They're mostly a roleplay thing, I think.

edit: won, not one ...

 

[klingonadmiral]

2. In your example you're failing to account for the mineral cost of buying and upgrading your energy buildings.

You only need to pay for the T1 buildings. Let your sectors pay for the rest.

Basically, get a ringworld, settle the planets, fill all spots with buildings, put the system in a established sector with locked redevelopment and too many minerals for its own good). Now the sector will utilize its unused resources to upgrade your buildings. Once it is done, remove the system from the sector.

6. Empirewide bonuses affect the Dyson Sphere as well. This includes any Civic, Ethics Bonus, Traditions, Wraith Killer, Cosmic Ray Catalysts, Galactic Stock Exchanges and especially the repeatable technologies.

Source on that, because they affect no other off-planet installations, be it Solar Panels or Energy Miners.

I remember Wiz saying in one of the streams that they balanced the non-habitat megastructures to be built around the time the player has already started snowballing.

The thing is, the snowball stops once you have reached your endgame goal, be it "merely" achieving a victory condition or going for total galactic control.You snowball harder to snowball harder to snowball harder to snowball harder to snowball harder [...]

Also those synth would eat 1 Energy Per pop. That is 25 Power down the drain.

Which they more than make up for with their tile energy bonus. Alternatively, get a species with Thrifty or an uplifted pre-sentient with Earthbound.

 

[pryr]

It can't be for tall empires. Where they find such crazy amount of minerals? I would rather believe it's for conquerors, which always have crazy amount of minerals but low on energy due fleet maintenance.

 

[zukodark]

Well, it is a one-time investment for 400 energy. Without any further penalties, ever. To produce that much energy with buildings you will still require a significant amount of minerals, but also in that case buildings for food (or more energy, if you use synths) and buildings to make up for science and unity. Then these buildings need to be worked as well, increasing demands of each resource further.

You are also using planets, which depending on your galaxy setup and empire, might be a reasonably limited. Most strategies to bring a single planet up to that production requires a heavy investment in modifiers, some of which also affect the sphere. Ringworlds needs an additional ascension perk if to be combined with the science nexus and sentry.

Dyson spheres are not always effective, but they certainly can be. It can be a heavy but worthy investment for a tall build. Though, it could also meet the energy demands of an expansionist empire without requiring a single energy investment elsewhere (traits, civics, traditions and perks).

Finally, they look awesome and is a sign of prestige.

 

[Slynx]

It can't be for tall empires.

because in stellaris tall is something like "less then 50 planets" or so... (there were someone on the forums that did the math on it and it was around 50-70 planets)

 

[klingonadmiral]

Well, it is a one-time investment for 400 energy. Without any further penalties, ever. To produce that much energy with buildings you will still require a significant amount of minerals, but also in that case buildings for food (or more energy, if you use synths) and buildings to make up for science and unity. Then these buildings need to be worked as well, increasing demands of each resource further.

Synths working energy more than pay for themselves. They add 1.2 energy to a lvl 4 powerplant, thus creating a .2 energy surplus over non-thrifty organics.

some of which also affect the sphere.

Yield modifiers do not affect off-world production.

I got Cosmic Ray Catalysis

I got 6 Solar Panels

Solar Panels produce 18.00 Energy, instead of 18.90

Thus Cosmic Ray Catalysis does not apply to them. Q.E.D.

because in stellaris tall is something like "less then 50 planets"

Technically speaking™ there is no tall in Stellaris, there is dense. Their planets will remain exactly as efficient as the planets of a wide empire, they just can cram many planets into a small territory. Where the standard "tall" playstyle a la Civ V has few cities, but gigantic cities. A "tall" Stellaris empire is more like a Civ IV game compared to a wide's empire Civ V game.

 

[AndragonLea]

It can't be for tall empires. Where they find such crazy amount of minerals? I would rather believe it's for conquerors, which always have crazy amount of minerals but low on energy due fleet maintenance.

I can't speak for everyone, but when I build tall I still need reasonable mineral income to support and eventually replace my standing fleet. It's for tall empires because those sooner or later run out of anything to spend minerals on, while still having a big mineral income to accomodate the military.

On the other hand, a wide empire almost always has more things to spend minerals on than it has minerals to spend. It may have massively more mineral income, but it also has massively more demands on that income stream.

Sure, if both empires are fully developed and stalled out in expansion, then a wide empire will probably be able to build far more mega structures and habitats than a tall one, but that's like saying that a wide empire will eventually have all techs just as a tall one does - it's true, but will usually happen far, far later in their developement stages.

A tall empire will have the minerals left over earlier than a wide one will, by and large (exceptions apply, as usual).