Coal: A not so abundant resource.

Im siting at tier x with maximum armour and weapons, all obtained with just mining, coal really isnt that hard to get, i just tended to deforest any forest planets i came across and i ended up drowning in the stuff....

The fuel problem becomes nothing later though, with access to uranium plutonium and solarium my fuel is always at 1000

 

ATM i have 300 coal I don't know what to do with. How I got them? Go mining!

 

It kinda sounds like the random abundance of resources needs to be clamped a little tighter. Most people seem to be having little trouble finding coal, but a few are left stranded, which suggests that the minimum proportion of coal is perhaps too low.

 

Which system and which planet? http://puu.sh/5Pqs3.jpg

Minor note: I'm amazed that you are complaining about coal or any resource for that matter. Most people would kill for that cluster of 10 planets that can be traveled to with barely any fuel.

 

digging down is the best advice i can give

 

Also, in response, I originally made this thread to complain about the wood conversion to coal being too high. That is the subject I'm championing.

 

Yup, mining is the way to go. I've found most (maybe all?) starting planets have a sort of sand/gravel layer that you should exploit for easy coal/ore, and my last two worlds have a mud/slime and bone/flesh layer, making for extremely easy mining (I didn't even need to go to Beta sector, skipped straight to gamma)

 

As a beta being moved towards the eventuality of full release, the idea is to refine the game. Bandages that are going to get in the way and have to be fixed again later are counterproductive. 10 wood to 1 coal certainly feels like a steep price at the moment, but when wood is renewable, will that really still be the case? I really do doubt it. Rather than a temporary fix that will need to be reverted later, I think it's better to instead spend time working on making wood renewable. Yes, those are very different things in terms of effort, but is a temporary conversion rate adjustment really needed while there's still at least one more character wipe on the horizon? I don't think it's important enough to actually need a temporary bandage, and I'd prefer Chucklefish minimize changes that they will need or want to go back and revert later. That puts them in danger of forgetting to when it comes time, which could potentially lead to unforseen problems. Maybe not in this case, but hey, they are unforseen.

 

Still, the fact that you have to use 10 wood logs to create one piece of coal seems waaaay too costly, especially when (In my experience) planets that have a greater amount of trees seem to give off only 9-12 logs. What if, for example, a player has come across a planet he loves, and wants to preserve, so he doesn't want to chop down so many trees? The rather expensive conversion rate of 10:1 practically forces deforestation, whether you want it or not. For this reason, I think a more acceptable rate would be around 3:1.

 

Again, that shouldn't be an issue once trees can be replanted, and once they can be replanted, unless they grow agonizingly slow, a 3:1 ratio would completely trivialize Coal. At that point, why bother using it as an upgrade ingredient for metals at all? I think you're ignoring how such changes would play out in the long-term...

 

It won't be trivialized, unless you forgot that it has other uses, and isn't just an upgrade material? It's also a fuel source for early gamers, and while I'm admittedly not as bad off as some players, there are others who only have one world in their system, and are just stranded where they are. From what I've seen in this thread, there are others worse off than I am, in that they have desert planets with few coal deposits. You can't tell me the conversion level is completely fair and justified when there are players stuck in that situation.

 

In such a case, the problem isn't the lack of coal. The problem is A.) the inability to farm trees and more importantly B.) that they started on a desert planet. If B is true, I would personally consider that either a bug or a design flaw and request that starting planet possibilities be restricted to forested planets. If instead people stranded on desert planets traveled to those planets... then they only have themselves to blame for jumping to a desert planet without making sure they have enough fuel to jump back off.

In either case, I think you're addressing the wrong problem.

 

Regardless, near the beginning of the thread, I can observe that many others think that the Conversion Cost is too damn high.



I'm not the only one who thinks it should be lowered. I wanna bring up the immersion element, but I have a feeling you'd tell me to go pound sand if I did.

 

I agree. Making trees replantable would solve this issue. I would also change the exchange ratio to 5:1, but introduce charcoal which is less effective than coal.
Regarding the starting planet I don't think the game will ever start you on a desert. Never happened to me anyway. The worst I got was a planet with an extensive giant mushroom biome and only a few trees only after a long walk.

Keep in mind that some of the current solutions are not to stay, they are temporary to see how things would balance out and will be eventually modified.

 

You're jumping to conclusions about me. Or trying an ad hominem attack, I'm not really sure which. I like immersion, I don't like tedium, and I'm well aware there is a difference between the two. I will also agree that 10:1 seems steep to me at this time.

But, as I've said, I believe the conversion rate is not at all the greater problem here, and that trees being made renewable would do much greater good than changing the conversion rate. Additionally, despite my current feelings, I believe it would be better to first see how the conversion rate feels/plays out once renewable trees are a thing before coming to a definite conclusion on what the conversion rate should be changed to, if it should be changed at all.

My focus here is that I don't think Chucklefish should be making short-term, temporary changes and that the greater variable should have its change first to better assess this smaller variable.

 

we just need to be able to replant trees

 

I probably am jumping to conclusions, admittedly. But you do strike me as someone who wouldn't give two shits on what I'm about to say.

So if you truly like immersion, then you should know that from an immersion standpoint, there's no way ten logs will yield only one charcoal. You probably already know, but charcoal is made by taking a few bits and pieces of wood, putting it in a metal container, and then heating the container in an oven. For one small piece of charcoal to be made by ten logs is inefficient and unrealistic, and really hurts the game in the immersion aspect. I realize that the amount of coal produced by wood will never drop down to more realistic levels, but I want to take steps to ensure that the blow to the immersion is lessened as much as possible.

At this point, I just want to be the Jimmy McMillan here, and say that I represent the "conversion cost is too damn high party."

Because the conversion cost is too damn high.

 

Sorry, it seems I left something out of my previous post. I meant to type "I like immersion, I don't like tedium, and I'm well aware there is a difference between the two. I will also agree that 10:1 seems steep to me at this time. I also care about game balance around as much as I care about immersion, and unfortunately they don't always agree." Balance matters to me in this case because it feels rather unsatisfying when a resource simply ceases to matter.

To explain, at one point in Minecraft's development, for a rather long period for that matter, I completely ignored Coal Ore. Charcoal fulfilled all of its roles, tree farms were something worth having whether Charcoal existed or not, and it was far simpler to throw a stack of wood into a furnace than it was to mine up a vein of Coal. It wasn't worth mining. That has since been remedied by providing other and different benefits to Coal Ore, such as Fortune, experience, a unique block aesthetic, and more efficient burn time through the block, but it would be quite easy for Starbound to reach a point where I see coal in dirt and... I ignore it because it isn't even worth the time it takes to pry up from soft soil.

Therefore I am cautious of a more generous conversion rate until after we are able to experience the rate of tree growth. I've seen what easy Charcoal can do to mining motivation already, through another slightly similar game.

I believe with that, my stance and reasoning should be clear as crystal. From here on, I suppose we simply agree to disagree, on priorities at the very least.

 

Alright, I went to your home planet and did the following:

I completely deforested the whole planet while mining all surface Coal and exploring all surface caves. I ignored the Floran jail dungeon and did not do any mining outside of reaching visible coal in my exploration. The result was 3,378 Wood and 401 Coal: http://puu.sh/5PsvV.jpg

That said, with access to that amount of wood (which converts to 337 Coal) on your starting planet the conversion rate is fine.

Hell, finding 401 Coal alone with zero time spent actually looking for it is more than enough to make this a complete non-issue. Not to mention you have 9 other planets to explore in your starting galaxy is just...

I honestly can't take your complaint on the conversion rate seriously.

 

I suppose you missed the part about "I want to preserve the planet's forest as it is." Right?

I'm trying to PREVENT deforesting the planet.