Instale o Steam
iniciar sessão
|
idioma
简体中文 (Chinês simplificado)
繁體中文 (Chinês tradicional)
日本語 (Japonês)
한국어 (Coreano)
ไทย (Tailandês)
Български (Búlgaro)
Čeština (Tcheco)
Dansk (Dinamarquês)
Deutsch (Alemão)
English (Inglês)
Español-España (Espanhol — Espanha)
Español-Latinoamérica (Espanhol — América Latina)
Ελληνικά (Grego)
Français (Francês)
Italiano (Italiano)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonésio)
Magyar (Húngaro)
Nederlands (Holandês)
Norsk (Norueguês)
Polski (Polonês)
Português (Portugal)
Română (Romeno)
Русский (Russo)
Suomi (Finlandês)
Svenska (Sueco)
Türkçe (Turco)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamita)
Українська (Ucraniano)
Relatar um problema com a tradução
Regras e diretrizes para discussões
Denunciar esta mensagem
Yeah, how useful a ringworld or megastructures are really depends on your playstyle. If you play aggressively you hardly need the extra space for pops or production buildings that megastructures offer (as you'll get "free" planets to do it on on a regular basis) and the alloys you need to get to even the first "profitable" stage of any megastructure are usually better invested in more ships for more dakka.
I like them because I usually build very dense, tiny empires and only wage war every other decade to subjugate or weaken enemies. For me, the huge alloy cost is a benefit because I need a certain output in case I DO have a war (usually between 50 to 100 a month with a fleet at max capacity), but in-between wars that income quickly caps my reserves unless I spend it - which is where megastructures come in.
Purely objectively I could of course win by that time, but I usually play on higher and higher difficulties to tackle higher and higher end game crisis settings, not to beat up on the AI that STILL stacks flak and point defense on both destroyers and corvettes long before you might conceivably use mass missiles or fighters.
I wouldn't say that a ringworld is useless, per se. You just gave one argument for having one: an ecumenopolis should be geared towards mostly making consumer goods and alloys, which means your planets should pump out minerals and special resources, which means you need to prioritize mining districts over generator or farming districts...
A single ringworld section can let you feed and power your entire empire (including the ecumenopolis and a good half dozen mining worlds) for a good chunk of the game.
Anything it earns you after that you can simply trade away for monthly alloy buy orders, to keep up artist/curator treaties or to gamble away for the tiny teensy chance you actually win something now that they nuked the slots into the ground.
They're just not made for that purpose. Don't get misled by the "World" in their name, they're about as natural as the ISS. And unless the designer is a huge fan of treasure hunting, there is simply no reason to bury ores into the station for people to find.
Yes, realistically what you are saying makes sense. I'm not denying that, just that it takes away from gameplay elements. If we're going to argue ore viability...well a ringworld has several hundred times the total mass of the average planet, and we mine those. Whose to say the same cannot be done on the surface of a ringworld, given that its surface does have soils and such for supporting life. If we're argueing realism, the realistically both a planet and a ringworld would run out of mineral resources at some point, but that still will not happen in the game, will it?
Then there's the use pre 2.2, in which ringworlds (And to some extension habitats) were basically expensive versions of planets you could set up anywhere, and to some degree could provide any extra resource, one of which is minerals, which is still a vital and somewhat limited resource in the game. Yes, they were and still are hard to get, but the fact that they were hard to get means they had to be king of OP in order to live up to the weight.
Now, ringworlds costs 5 times as much, because they are composed of alloys which are basically an alloy:mineral 1:5 ratio. And they can no longer produce minerals. I'm sorry, but from where I stand this is nothing but a downgrade for the sake of 'realism'. And sympathizing with someone who doesn't have the megacorp DLC, they cannot build black-hole miners, so how are they supposed to get more minerals if they got bad planets with little to no mining zones available? Ringworlds and habitats were the solution, now they costs 5 times more and are not a solution.
It's not a nerf, ringworlds were buffed a lot compared to normal planets. They can get much larger, so there is a very real and obvious benefit to building them now where as before they were just extra planets with no real benefit.
Also I'm not sure why you think minerals don't have a higher value than energy or food, because they are still used for just about everything non-military wise, and the markets seem to have the same opinion. And that brings me to the markets, buying truckloads of resources greatly increases the cost each time. On the local market the price will steadily decrease, but once the galactic market is set up, the price skyrockets to unreasonably high level. You cannot buy large amounts of minerals, or alloys for that matter without 50,000 energy at least.
Also, ringworlds had no benefit pre2.2? They were the equivalent of four 25-tile gaia worlds that could produce any resource better than average planets, and support 100 total population between the four segments. If you were playing tall, you did so with ringworlds. Now, they can support a much higher population and therefore large gains in agriculture, energy output, or trade, but no minerals. Here's the issue with that: at any given point, I have more than enough resources to get enough food and energy as I want. What I really need is minerals, all the time. If I want more energy, I build a dyson sphere, or just increase trade value of planets and build trading stations. If I want more food, there a plenty of farming planets and hydroponics bays to build, plus food has a tendancy to be very cheap on the markets. If there is a benefit to ringworlds right now besides that, what is it, because I do not know?
Also, I didn't use habitats since 1.9, but they did have mineral producing buildings. I know that has since changed, and the general consensus is that they are useless. But again, I have not used them.
Lmfao
Trees, plants, etc.? We can fly through space but can't produce diamonds or resources anymore from renewable resources that would be on a ring world? Ha...
Why doesn't it exist anymore? I mean we have ringworlds, dyson spheres, giant space dragons, and black-hole miners. Matter to energy conversion seems kind of light compared to all of that.
No, it's 2:1, always. You can't factor in the consumer good cost into the ratio for the following reason, and this counters your second point as well, you can convert trade into consumer goods so that the only thing you are spending minerals on is alloys. A trade focussed ringworld can generate all the consumer goods you need for your entire empire, and suddenly you have a ton more minerals to spend on alloys. Even without a heavy focus on trade on any planet my trade generates enough consumer goods for most of my empire's upkeep, so again I never have a shortage of minerals and I'm usually selling it. I generally can't get enough foundry jobs to convert all the minerals I produce fast enough.
Exactly, they were just normal worlds. They did nothing special. There was little reason to make ringworld when you could just conquer/colonize more worlds. Now they do something unique, now they are double the size of the largest planets. That's freaking amazing, I don't understand how anyone could be complaining.
I hadn't considered the trade->consumer goods approach. Ringworlds would indeed be suited for that if geared for trade. Still, the cost to set up a ringworld vs a Ecumenopolis means that the latter would have a better initial value, even if the former has more value once set up. I suppose this means that ringworlds are good if you have no planets available. So if consumer goods are not an issue, that brings the ratio to 2:1 as you predicted. Still, where is your mineral resource gain coming from? To my knowledge trade cannot generate minerals. Also yes, foundries will do the job of convering minerals-alloys effectively, but a Ecumenopolis has dedicated districts with the same ratios, and no strategic resource costs, plus more jobs. This would also make ringworlds, or any worlds rather, a secondary option, but thats slightly off-topic.
This also brings me to second point. Yes, they were just 4 huge planets from a gameplay perspective (aesthetic sense notwithstanding), but you could, and still can, set a ringworld anywhere, meaning if you have no planets available, this is an option. Still is, but now it costs about twice as much from the 2:1 ratio. My argument is not that they cannot produce resources, just no useful ones. By the time I have the resources to set up a ringworld, I have enough energy, food, and consumer goods. I can see the energy bit being extremely useful to machine empires, less so for organics. What I need at any point in the game, for any real construction is minerals and alloys, and ringworlds cannot produce either without the alloy plants. And here's the thing, unless there are no planets available, I would much rather make a Ecumenopolis than a ringworld to make alloys, or consumer goods for that matter. Making ringworlds able to produce any kind of resource via mining or energy->matter converters would instantly flip this assessment for me.
I would argue the galactic market (singular, because there is only one...) needs more variety and factors to it if it is to be considered a good viable way for acquiring resources through clever thinking and such. Right now the prices either rise to the ceiling or fall to the floor with most resources. The player can sell large quantities to lower the overall price for a time, or buy large quantities to raise the price, but unless I'm missing something there isn't much else. Access to the internal market even in addition to the galactic market would be nice though.