In regards to the Seamoth and SeaGlide, why are their lights defaulted to ON when I load my save file? I know I turn them off before I save and quit, but it's bothersome the game can't retain their state. The SeaGlide isn't that big of an issue, as I dont think it drains power while it's not actively selected, but it's such a pain with the Seamoth since it can deplete your Power Cell completely if you're not actively aware of it.
I don't think that I missed the point but I may have made myself not clear enough. I think that a dicussion is good and that suggestions for upcoming changes are good. That is exactly what the devs need imo for additional input and ideas before they implement/change something.
The thing where I see no meaning in, is to judge things that the devs have not even changed yet. Why discuss if they change just for the sake of changing instead of improving when there is barely something to judge? The few "facts" we have right now are the x5 value changes on a Trello card and a few numbers in a spreadsheet about power consumption that may or may not be the numbers they use for the change. That is at least for me nothing worthy of juding the complete power system overhaul yet. But I may just be a person who likes to see and test a change first before I judge it.
But again, that's always been your precise issue - you haven't yet shown any reason for why we should just assume the devs changed anything at all there or intend to, let alone that they'll do it for the better. And what's being judged is precisely the issue of whether or not the changes in the future will be balanced - hence why it feels you're missing the point in saying "let's not discuss hypotheticals" when said hypotheticals are the whole core of this debate. Hell, you kind of undermined your own argument with the Trello card, since it specifies power consumption will be equally-increased along with power values, so it still doesn't equate to the devs making any actual, meaningful rebalances yet.
Honestly, it's less the fact you want to wait and test it and more that it feels you don't agree with anyone being any kind of skeptical beforehand.
I would really like to get more options and readouts about power production and consumption. Something like total power produced/drained and a timer how long your base could run on its current energy storage would be nice.
I also like the option to adjust our power usage more or even to prioritize which reactors to use first etc. I don't know if an automated system would work but we already have "smart homes" today that recognize if an owner is there or not and correspondingly shutting off lights and turning the heat down to save energy when you leave and turn it back on when you come back home. So from a pure technical point of view your mentioned system could work well.
A rather simple method could be to have a list of power draining "parts" in your base on which you could prioritize what should always have power "if possible" and what can be shut off IF power storage runs low. But all those values and options would need a kind of "energy-management"-console or something alike to put all the values on there. Yes this would take quite some coding and would need a new graphic asset for the console but I think it would greatly benefit the power system.
My issue is more that I don't see an AI shutting off air production every time the survivor leaves the base. That and, if it becomes a matter of pure efficiency in what to make, on/off switches feel like they'd be the simplest to code.
The devs could change the signal implementation handling a bit:
Bases get a signal
When displaying a base signal we get the distance, capacity and energy drain displayed
Switching off a signal turns its power into sleep mode / "low power" mode
That might potentially mess with all the other signals in the signal tabs, though - how messy might it become to have a single signal mixed in with all those others yet is that much more complex? You'd practically need an entirely new micromanagement tab built for that one signal - heck, it would be easier to make it an entirely separate system rather than attach it to the rest of the signals, and even than it sounds like no small task code-wise.
This way we don't need a complicated switch implementation as the switch for turning off signals is already there. The devs only have to implement bases being signals together with delivering capacity and energy drain. And implement a "low powered" sleep mode:
sleeping beacons and scanner cams just stop sending data.
sleeping vehicles and bases switch to life support only (alien containment and plants)
sleeping vehicles and bases disengage creature attacks and lava larvas attracted to energy
IDK - wouldn't it be every bit as complicated to implement so many coded switches into a single signal readout, if not arguably more-so? Rigging the on-off for a signal to kill every single item and generator in your base would mean tying it into every buildable power-drawing item, which is slated to include every single base piece in the future. Same for a "low powered sleep mode", since that would entail creating an entirely new power-balance system and values to use there - it seems like way, way more work for the dev to create.
This way also ensures the devs can implement creature attacks without the player fearing a base attack while he's away from his many bases. He simply puts an attacked base into sleep mode if he doesn't have the time to defend it.
That wouldn't do anything about physical damages to the bases, though. And if the generators are on the outside, their being destroyed would cripple things anyway - and thus force someone to be around in order to prevent that. "Sleep mode" doesn't feel like it would mitigate hull breeches or the like.
This will turn the beacon display control tab into a SciFi Smart Home manager. The view checkbox could switch power on/off or more like full power/sleep mode. Only full power shows us the signal and thus includes the old view checkbox function. It's even possible to get 3 energy settings (like the different color modes): full power, sleep mode, off
But again, that seems like a heck of a lot to code into - you'd have to tie that into every single power-using piece in the game, which is going to include every buildable room. Adding those reads on the marker seems like it would be more messy than anything else, and if you shut the beacon off and therefore the read-out off, how would you know if something happens while it's "asleep"? Plus, recoding the checkboxes like that for just one signal among all the signals seems like it might be at risk of crossing into the others code-wise - it'd be easier to create a whole new tab for that, and even that would be no mean feet of coding.
Honestly speaking, it just feels like it's more trouble to force an automatic solution than it's worth - especially since it still doesn't address the actual triaging of base components as opposed to imposing general settings.
But again, that's always been your precise issue - you haven't yet shown any reason for why we should just assume the devs changed anything at all there or intend to, let alone that they'll do it for the better.
What more do you need then a Dev made trellocards that shows what the plan to do to admit that they are changing the power system? Yes the card itself "just" shows the intend of what they want to change. But hell you still claim they not going to change things? If the new balance will be better remains to be seen as those changes have not yet made it to the stable version. I just don't get it why you always be so nagging about things that they just announced on Trello in this case.
The next lines are a very simpliflied view of how you come around to me: Old system = bad, not balanced well, They announce changes = Meh they gonna screw it up even more! If they change it at all.
And what's being judged is precisely the issue of whether or not the changes in the future will be balanced - hence why it feels you're missing the point in saying "let's not discuss hypotheticals" when said hypotheticals are the whole core of this debate. Hell, you kind of undermined your own argument with the Trello card, since it specifies power consumption will be equally-increased along with power values, so it still doesn't equate to the devs making any actual, meaningful rebalances yet.
Honestly, it's less the fact you want to wait and test it and more that it feels you don't agree with anyone being any kind of skeptical beforehand.
Yet again you claim to have all the wisdom in the world by stating that those first values they are going to change would most likely not end in a meaningful rebalance at all. Where is that scepticism based on? Just because they raised the power consumption too? Seriously? They are far from finished with the whole balancing process. What did the devs do wrong here in you opinion that deserves your almost always negative tone about their game balance work? Do you have any game design experience at all some reference that proofs your point of views any more valid in any way then that of the devs themselfs? I don't think so...yet you claim more often then not that the devs don't listen, or don't seem to know what they are doing.
I don't mind when people are skeptical I am skeptical too. I just voiced my concerns in another thread about the planned change for "Silent Running" from speed to timed ability. But what you call beeing "skeptical" is far more then beeing skeptical you undermine every single decision the devs made and nitpick on them where you can. You come more around as a troll nagging on everything the devs do just for the sole purpose of nagging. THAT is nowhere near just beeing skeptical.
What more do you need then a Dev made trellocards that shows what the plan to do to admit that they are changing the power system? Yes the card itself "just" shows the intend of what they want to change. But hell you still claim they not going to change things? If the new balance will be better remains to be seen as those changes have not yet made it to the stable version. I just don't get it why you always be so nagging about things that they just announced on Trello in this case.
The next lines are a very simpliflied view of how you come around to me: Old system = bad, not balanced well, They announce changes = Meh they gonna screw it up even more! If they change it at all.
You're still missing the point, though - namely that them focusing on it doesn't equate to what they do actually fixing or benefiting it. What we need is something to evidence that the changes and rebalancing being done actually improve the experience, as opposed to complicate or even be detrimental to it like the early iteration of Silent Running's Cyclops health was to a lot of people.
You're still not illustrating how them targeting something to change specifics how they are going to change it - and because they themselves might not know yet, you... well, frankly speaking, you can't possibly make these demands for 100% trust and expect it to be universally taken at face-value. Hell, weren't you the one championing the idea of waiting until the changes were done to judge? How can you have that kind of mentality and yet be so begrudging of someone choosing to be wary until they see the changes? Being proactively cautious, in my personal opinion, is better than waiting for something to be potentially messed up and it cost extra time and effort to fix after the fact.
Yet again you claim to have all the wisdom in the world by stating that those first values they are going to change would most likely not end in a meaningful rebalance at all. Where is that scepticism based on? Just because they raised the power consumption too? Seriously? They are far from finished with the whole balancing process. What did the devs do wrong here in you opinion that deserves your almost always negative tone about their game balance work? Do you have any game design experience at all some reference that proofs your point of views any more valid in any way then that of the devs themselfs? I don't think so...yet you claim more often then not that the devs don't listen, or don't seem to know what they are doing.
That's just it, though; I didn't claim any such thing - in fact, it's precisely because I don't know what to expect from the devs and don't have that foresight into how they'll approach this that I'm being skeptical. I'm simply erring on the more cynical side in regards to expecting "changes will be made" to automatically equal "the changes will be good." I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but it honestly does feel like you're the one who tries to claim they know best, in regards to how any kind of skepticism towards the devs is shot down by you. Doubly so, since my remarks honestly aren't even actually speaking ill of the devs - I haven't said that they won't fix the issues for the better; I'm simply saying that I don't have any way to be sure that's what will happen, so I can't treat it as the 100% fact that it feels you're trying to claim it as.
To put it simply, it's not that I think the devs will do wrong - it's that it feels like you're saying they can't do wrong, or that we shouldn't expect the possibility of such. You think it's that I'm naysaying of them without evidence, but yet it feels like you're demanding absolute faith be put in them without knowing for yourself what they'll do either.
I don't mind when people are skeptical I am skeptical too. I just voiced my concerns in another thread about the planned change for "Silent Running" from speed to timed ability. But what you call beeing "skeptical" is far more then beeing skeptical you undermine every single decision the devs made and nitpick on them where you can. You come more around as a troll nagging on everything the devs do just for the sole purpose of nagging. THAT is nowhere near just beeing skeptical.
Again, I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but that doesn't feel like it's reflected in what you've said and done here so far. And no, I'm not "undermining every single decision" - in a thread I made (where you yourself were/are an active commenter in), I voiced approval of creating a Thermal Generator for the Cyclops, so you saying that I'm "a troll" is grossly misrepresentative. Again, doubly so since I haven't even said the devs will surefire get it wrong - I'm simply against how, frankly speaking, you seem severely against anyone else expressing doubt that they'll surefire get it right.
To make a long story short, it feels like you're being overly defensive about skepticism towards the devs, even when it's not as extreme as you claim. Nobody's actually nitpicked them, for instance - I've simply pointed out that there's no proof that their changes will be for the best, on the basis that they themselves probably haven't even worked out how the changes will be implemented in any other capacity than "we should change that."
Now, having got all that out of the way, I'll kindly ask that any further personal issues you have with my way of addressing concerns be done in PM? I'd rather not have this threat be further derailed by things like "troll" and "nagging for the sole purpose of nagging" being thrown around.
What more do you need then a Dev made trellocards that shows what the plan to do to admit that they are changing the power system? Yes the card itself "just" shows the intend of what they want to change. But hell you still claim they not going to change things? If the new balance will be better remains to be seen as those changes have not yet made it to the stable version. I just don't get it why you always be so nagging about things that they just announced on Trello in this case.
The next lines are a very simpliflied view of how you come around to me: Old system = bad, not balanced well, They announce changes = Meh they gonna screw it up even more! If they change it at all.
You're still missing the point, though - namely that them focusing on it doesn't equate to what they do actually fixing or benefiting it. What we need is something to evidence that the changes and rebalancing being done actually improve the experience, as opposed to complicate or even be detrimental to it like the early iteration of Silent Running's Cyclops health was to a lot of people.
You're still not illustrating how them targeting something to change specifics how they are going to change it - and because they themselves might not know yet, you... well, frankly speaking, you can't possibly make these demands for 100% trust and expect it to be universally taken at face-value. Hell, weren't you the one championing the idea of waiting until the changes were done to judge? How can you have that kind of mentality and yet be so begrudging of someone choosing to be wary until they see the changes? Being proactively cautious, in my personal opinion, is better than waiting for something to be potentially messed up and it cost extra time and effort to fix after the fact.
Yet again you claim to have all the wisdom in the world by stating that those first values they are going to change would most likely not end in a meaningful rebalance at all. Where is that scepticism based on? Just because they raised the power consumption too? Seriously? They are far from finished with the whole balancing process. What did the devs do wrong here in you opinion that deserves your almost always negative tone about their game balance work? Do you have any game design experience at all some reference that proofs your point of views any more valid in any way then that of the devs themselfs? I don't think so...yet you claim more often then not that the devs don't listen, or don't seem to know what they are doing.
That's just it, though; I didn't claim any such thing - in fact, it's precisely because I don't know what to expect from the devs and don't have that foresight into how they'll approach this that I'm being skeptical. I'm simply erring on the more cynical side in regards to expecting "changes will be made" to automatically equal "the changes will be good." I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but it honestly does feel like you're the one who tries to claim they know best, in regards to how any kind of skepticism towards the devs is shot down by you. Doubly so, since my remarks honestly aren't even actually speaking ill of the devs - I haven't said that they won't fix the issues for the better; I'm simply saying that I don't have any way to be sure that's what will happen, so I can't treat it as the 100% fact that it feels you're trying to claim it as.
To put it simply, it's not that I think the devs will do wrong - it's that it feels like you're saying they can't do wrong, or that we shouldn't expect the possibility of such. You think it's that I'm naysaying of them without evidence, but yet it feels like you're demanding absolute faith be put in them without knowing for yourself what they'll do either.
I don't mind when people are skeptical I am skeptical too. I just voiced my concerns in another thread about the planned change for "Silent Running" from speed to timed ability. But what you call beeing "skeptical" is far more then beeing skeptical you undermine every single decision the devs made and nitpick on them where you can. You come more around as a troll nagging on everything the devs do just for the sole purpose of nagging. THAT is nowhere near just beeing skeptical.
Again, I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but that doesn't feel like it's reflected in what you've said and done here so far. And no, I'm not "undermining every single decision" - in a thread I made (where you yourself were/are an active commenter in), I voiced approval of creating a Thermal Generator for the Cyclops, so you saying that I'm "a troll" is grossly misrepresentative. Again, doubly so since I haven't even said the devs will surefire get it wrong - I'm simply against how, frankly speaking, you seem severely against anyone else expressing doubt that they'll surefire get it right.
To make a long story short, it feels like you're being overly defensive about skepticism towards the devs, even when it's not as extreme as you claim. Nobody's actually nitpicked them, for instance - I've simply pointed out that there's no proof that their changes will be for the best, on the basis that they themselves probably haven't even worked out how the changes will be implemented in any other capacity than "we should change that."
Now, having got all that out of the way, I'll kindly ask that any further personal issues you have with my way of addressing concerns be done in PM? I'd rather not have this threat be further derailed by things like "troll" and "nagging for the sole purpose of nagging" being thrown around.
I'll keep it short then. Pleas edit your post, you put @zetachron in my quotes.
No need to drag this to PM's. Sorry for exaggerating in my last post. I don't mind your skepticism. And yes you don't always write skeptical posts. And as you are not 100% against the devs I am neither 100% pro devs. Sure they make mistakes. I just strongly believe that no one should judge a book by its cover. I'll try to read your upcoming posts with more insight before I qoute you.
Can we agree on the point that the game is in a phase where balancing goes from one try to another until in the end a hopefully satisfying result for the majority of the player base is archieved? I mean that is the way balancing works AFAIK, you change things (sometime to the extreme), get feedback from the community (the good/the bad and everything in between) and change again (in smaler steps) untill you find a middleground that is seen as mostly positive by the majority of the players right?. The perfect balance is never archieved since you can't satisfy all your players.
I think if we can agree on that we'd have a win win. You can then keep beein overly skeptical and I keep beeing overly trusting that the devs will get it right in the end. Ok?
No need to drag this to PM's. Sorry for exaggerating in my last post. I don't mind your skepticism. And yes you don't always write skeptical posts. And as you are not 100% against the devs I am neither 100% pro devs. Sure they make mistakes. I just strongly believe that no one should judge a book by its cover. I'll try to read your upcoming posts with more insight before I qoute you.
That's always been my approach too, though; it's precisely because I don't like judging books by their covers that I don't assume the outcome will automatically be great. Neither of these views are wrong; it's just that your view is more optimistic while mine's more skeptical.
Can we agree on the point that the game is in a phase where balancing goes from one try to another until in the end a hopefully satisfying result for the majority of the player base is archieved? I mean that is the way balancing works AFAIK, you change things (sometime to the extreme), get feedback from the community (the good/the bad and everything in between) and change again (in smaler steps) untill you find a middleground that is seen as mostly positive by the majority of the players right?. The perfect balance is never archieved since you can't satisfy all your players.
I think if we can agree on that we'd have a win win. You can then keep beein overly skeptical and I keep beeing overly trusting that the devs will get it right in the end. Ok?
How balancing works was never in question, I think, but I'm just of the opinion that being a bit more critical of things beforehand helps avoid return trips to the same material and repeatedly altering the same aspect. Especially with things like the power system, which is likely going to need a lot of adjustment and balancing to be done. But again, yeah - agreed that's how balancing works, and we can at least agree on that much.
Sounds like one person suggesting you wait for grenade to explode and blow someones face off while the other person is trying to say you shouldn't wait for that before explaining how the damn thing works.
There is nothing in the game now that can so much as keep me playing, forget keeping me interested. While half a year ago I liked most of the things game offered. The glorious result of sitting with your thumb up your ass and waiting for miracles and good things. Whooray! Not everyone shares the singular viewpoint. If someone can't stand direction that the game in beta is heading to... suggesting they sit and wait is not going to help them... now or later. Does it make the game bad... no it doesn't. It just makes me not want to touch it and slowly wears the last bits of my interest in it.
To answer OP: I do have bases with nuclear reactors, although as with all my bases it's always combined with another power source.
I really enjoy base building in this game and usually have 3-4 bases in one playthrough. A negative on the fun factor is that bases tend to be rather alike. It's always good to have a moon pool, a filtration machine, a scanner room, etc. It's only the parameters - energy and hull strength - where base building and base location interact and pros and cons have to be considered. In that regard, nuclear reactors are my choice for places where I can find uranite.
This isn't to say nuclear reactors aren't my least favored source of energy. I have no strong opinions on their usefulness since I get by with what I got, but I dislike how the other three sources all are endless/renewable while all ingredients of a reactor rod are gone at some point. Even if plants will one day require fertilizer, neither that nor seeds exist in limited supply (unless you go out of your way to destroy all flora in the game). One of many reasons why I want respawning resources.
Having the control to decide on energy source priorities also would be nice.
I am new here and cannot post a new topic yet. However, I built a nuclear reactor, and got uranite crystals, but now I have no idea how to build the rods. In fabricator there is not such option. I can build uranium from those but not uranium rods. Any ideas?
I am new here and cannot post a new topic yet. However, I built a nuclear reactor, and got uranite crystals, but now I have no idea how to build the rods. In fabricator there is not such option. I can build uranium from those but not uranium rods. Any ideas?
You use the uranium (+lead +titaniutm) to make uranium rods. They should be under one of the electronics tabs. Worth to say that in the near future uranium will be cut out and you can make uranium rods from uranite directly.
Comments
But again, that's always been your precise issue - you haven't yet shown any reason for why we should just assume the devs changed anything at all there or intend to, let alone that they'll do it for the better. And what's being judged is precisely the issue of whether or not the changes in the future will be balanced - hence why it feels you're missing the point in saying "let's not discuss hypotheticals" when said hypotheticals are the whole core of this debate. Hell, you kind of undermined your own argument with the Trello card, since it specifies power consumption will be equally-increased along with power values, so it still doesn't equate to the devs making any actual, meaningful rebalances yet.
Honestly, it's less the fact you want to wait and test it and more that it feels you don't agree with anyone being any kind of skeptical beforehand.
My issue is more that I don't see an AI shutting off air production every time the survivor leaves the base. That and, if it becomes a matter of pure efficiency in what to make, on/off switches feel like they'd be the simplest to code.
That might potentially mess with all the other signals in the signal tabs, though - how messy might it become to have a single signal mixed in with all those others yet is that much more complex? You'd practically need an entirely new micromanagement tab built for that one signal - heck, it would be easier to make it an entirely separate system rather than attach it to the rest of the signals, and even than it sounds like no small task code-wise.
IDK - wouldn't it be every bit as complicated to implement so many coded switches into a single signal readout, if not arguably more-so? Rigging the on-off for a signal to kill every single item and generator in your base would mean tying it into every buildable power-drawing item, which is slated to include every single base piece in the future. Same for a "low powered sleep mode", since that would entail creating an entirely new power-balance system and values to use there - it seems like way, way more work for the dev to create.
That wouldn't do anything about physical damages to the bases, though. And if the generators are on the outside, their being destroyed would cripple things anyway - and thus force someone to be around in order to prevent that. "Sleep mode" doesn't feel like it would mitigate hull breeches or the like.
But again, that seems like a heck of a lot to code into - you'd have to tie that into every single power-using piece in the game, which is going to include every buildable room. Adding those reads on the marker seems like it would be more messy than anything else, and if you shut the beacon off and therefore the read-out off, how would you know if something happens while it's "asleep"? Plus, recoding the checkboxes like that for just one signal among all the signals seems like it might be at risk of crossing into the others code-wise - it'd be easier to create a whole new tab for that, and even that would be no mean feet of coding.
Honestly speaking, it just feels like it's more trouble to force an automatic solution than it's worth - especially since it still doesn't address the actual triaging of base components as opposed to imposing general settings.
What more do you need then a Dev made trellocards that shows what the plan to do to admit that they are changing the power system? Yes the card itself "just" shows the intend of what they want to change. But hell you still claim they not going to change things? If the new balance will be better remains to be seen as those changes have not yet made it to the stable version. I just don't get it why you always be so nagging about things that they just announced on Trello in this case.
The next lines are a very simpliflied view of how you come around to me: Old system = bad, not balanced well, They announce changes = Meh they gonna screw it up even more! If they change it at all.
Yet again you claim to have all the wisdom in the world by stating that those first values they are going to change would most likely not end in a meaningful rebalance at all. Where is that scepticism based on? Just because they raised the power consumption too? Seriously? They are far from finished with the whole balancing process. What did the devs do wrong here in you opinion that deserves your almost always negative tone about their game balance work? Do you have any game design experience at all some reference that proofs your point of views any more valid in any way then that of the devs themselfs? I don't think so...yet you claim more often then not that the devs don't listen, or don't seem to know what they are doing.
I don't mind when people are skeptical I am skeptical too. I just voiced my concerns in another thread about the planned change for "Silent Running" from speed to timed ability. But what you call beeing "skeptical" is far more then beeing skeptical you undermine every single decision the devs made and nitpick on them where you can. You come more around as a troll nagging on everything the devs do just for the sole purpose of nagging. THAT is nowhere near just beeing skeptical.
You're still missing the point, though - namely that them focusing on it doesn't equate to what they do actually fixing or benefiting it. What we need is something to evidence that the changes and rebalancing being done actually improve the experience, as opposed to complicate or even be detrimental to it like the early iteration of Silent Running's Cyclops health was to a lot of people.
You're still not illustrating how them targeting something to change specifics how they are going to change it - and because they themselves might not know yet, you... well, frankly speaking, you can't possibly make these demands for 100% trust and expect it to be universally taken at face-value. Hell, weren't you the one championing the idea of waiting until the changes were done to judge? How can you have that kind of mentality and yet be so begrudging of someone choosing to be wary until they see the changes? Being proactively cautious, in my personal opinion, is better than waiting for something to be potentially messed up and it cost extra time and effort to fix after the fact.
That's just it, though; I didn't claim any such thing - in fact, it's precisely because I don't know what to expect from the devs and don't have that foresight into how they'll approach this that I'm being skeptical. I'm simply erring on the more cynical side in regards to expecting "changes will be made" to automatically equal "the changes will be good." I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but it honestly does feel like you're the one who tries to claim they know best, in regards to how any kind of skepticism towards the devs is shot down by you. Doubly so, since my remarks honestly aren't even actually speaking ill of the devs - I haven't said that they won't fix the issues for the better; I'm simply saying that I don't have any way to be sure that's what will happen, so I can't treat it as the 100% fact that it feels you're trying to claim it as.
To put it simply, it's not that I think the devs will do wrong - it's that it feels like you're saying they can't do wrong, or that we shouldn't expect the possibility of such. You think it's that I'm naysaying of them without evidence, but yet it feels like you're demanding absolute faith be put in them without knowing for yourself what they'll do either.
Again, I'm sorry if this comes across as rude, but that doesn't feel like it's reflected in what you've said and done here so far. And no, I'm not "undermining every single decision" - in a thread I made (where you yourself were/are an active commenter in), I voiced approval of creating a Thermal Generator for the Cyclops, so you saying that I'm "a troll" is grossly misrepresentative. Again, doubly so since I haven't even said the devs will surefire get it wrong - I'm simply against how, frankly speaking, you seem severely against anyone else expressing doubt that they'll surefire get it right.
To make a long story short, it feels like you're being overly defensive about skepticism towards the devs, even when it's not as extreme as you claim. Nobody's actually nitpicked them, for instance - I've simply pointed out that there's no proof that their changes will be for the best, on the basis that they themselves probably haven't even worked out how the changes will be implemented in any other capacity than "we should change that."
Now, having got all that out of the way, I'll kindly ask that any further personal issues you have with my way of addressing concerns be done in PM? I'd rather not have this threat be further derailed by things like "troll" and "nagging for the sole purpose of nagging" being thrown around.
I'll keep it short then. Pleas edit your post, you put @zetachron in my quotes.
No need to drag this to PM's. Sorry for exaggerating in my last post. I don't mind your skepticism. And yes you don't always write skeptical posts. And as you are not 100% against the devs I am neither 100% pro devs. Sure they make mistakes. I just strongly believe that no one should judge a book by its cover. I'll try to read your upcoming posts with more insight before I qoute you.
Can we agree on the point that the game is in a phase where balancing goes from one try to another until in the end a hopefully satisfying result for the majority of the player base is archieved? I mean that is the way balancing works AFAIK, you change things (sometime to the extreme), get feedback from the community (the good/the bad and everything in between) and change again (in smaler steps) untill you find a middleground that is seen as mostly positive by the majority of the players right?. The perfect balance is never archieved since you can't satisfy all your players.
I think if we can agree on that we'd have a win win. You can then keep beein overly skeptical and I keep beeing overly trusting that the devs will get it right in the end. Ok?
That's always been my approach too, though; it's precisely because I don't like judging books by their covers that I don't assume the outcome will automatically be great. Neither of these views are wrong; it's just that your view is more optimistic while mine's more skeptical.
How balancing works was never in question, I think, but I'm just of the opinion that being a bit more critical of things beforehand helps avoid return trips to the same material and repeatedly altering the same aspect. Especially with things like the power system, which is likely going to need a lot of adjustment and balancing to be done. But again, yeah - agreed that's how balancing works, and we can at least agree on that much.
There is nothing in the game now that can so much as keep me playing, forget keeping me interested. While half a year ago I liked most of the things game offered. The glorious result of sitting with your thumb up your ass and waiting for miracles and good things. Whooray! Not everyone shares the singular viewpoint. If someone can't stand direction that the game in beta is heading to... suggesting they sit and wait is not going to help them... now or later. Does it make the game bad... no it doesn't. It just makes me not want to touch it and slowly wears the last bits of my interest in it.
I really enjoy base building in this game and usually have 3-4 bases in one playthrough. A negative on the fun factor is that bases tend to be rather alike. It's always good to have a moon pool, a filtration machine, a scanner room, etc. It's only the parameters - energy and hull strength - where base building and base location interact and pros and cons have to be considered. In that regard, nuclear reactors are my choice for places where I can find uranite.
This isn't to say nuclear reactors aren't my least favored source of energy. I have no strong opinions on their usefulness since I get by with what I got, but I dislike how the other three sources all are endless/renewable while all ingredients of a reactor rod are gone at some point. Even if plants will one day require fertilizer, neither that nor seeds exist in limited supply (unless you go out of your way to destroy all flora in the game). One of many reasons why I want respawning resources.
Having the control to decide on energy source priorities also would be nice.
My only response to this entire debacle
You use the uranium (+lead +titaniutm) to make uranium rods. They should be under one of the electronics tabs. Worth to say that in the near future uranium will be cut out and you can make uranium rods from uranite directly.