Energy and Power

Stuff in space needs power, especially in space stations or hostile atmospheres (see my post here: http://community.playstarbound.com/index.php?threads/atmospheres-and-players.4994/) so there should be items that produce power, such as hydrocarbon generators (i.e. coal or oil), nuclear generators (will need uranium for this), and solar power plants (especially for the space station itself). Any thoughts or ideas about this, Starbound Forum goers?

 

The need for power sounds like it may be a bit too much to handle for some casual players..
..
But I love the idea!!! More things to organize and plan means longer game life.
Power generators could be upgraded with scraps you gather too.

 

I think maintaining power in a station could be fun. Everyone can have like a Nuclear Fission Generator in their first planetary hubs but like build outposts that run off hydrocarbons or even geothermal energy and nuclear fusion. I suppose it could be complicated but it doesn't need to be (ex. *insert generator here* *+fuel* *power!*)

 

This is straying into mad scientist territory, but I think being able to harvest stars would be pretty fun You could only do it once you're far enough in the game and it'd give you a huge amount of energy. However, as a con, it'd turn all the planets in its system into cold, icy, barren planets with few resources. Maybe even have it, very rarely, turn into a supernova or black hole.

 

sounds awesome im imaging cutting power to my brothers security system for his base then sneaking in and stealing his stuff!!!

 

I assume you're referencing the Dyson Sphere[Wikipedia], A hypothetical solar panel that would completely surround a star. I cannot, in any case, see this as turning into a black hole or supernova. Where would the energy/mass for this come from? I'm assuming we're staying within reasonable MAD SCIENCE!. MAD SCIENCE! where we do obviously break physics, like conservation of energy, because that would open up access to perpetual motion (Which would be interesting to impliment as a high level technology, but is a whole other can of worms).

If you read the page on the Dyson Sphere, you will notice that it could hypothetically generate MASSIVE amounts of power even with simple versions like the Dyson Ring, or Bubble (Hypothetically transmitted via microwaves or other electromagenetic radiation.), while not obstructing sunlight to any major degree, and with minor changes not obstructing light at all, so I cannot see any significant negative gameplay effects, save for the fact that it would be massively costly to produce.

EDIT: I'm assuming you're using supernovas and black holes as a way motivating players not to place them in their home systems, as they would completely destroy them. Supernovas I can see doing that, but black holes would only have the effective of reducing light output to nil, since the mass of a black hole does not change before and after it becomes a black hole; it still has the same gravitational field with the same range. You could use this as a gameplay negative in of itself, as perpetual cavelike darkness could bring out all sorts of monsters.

EDIT TWO: And I just realised I spend 40 minutes on this post, and it's barely on topic. Uh, I'm suggesting Dyson Spheres as a possible source of energy?

 

That is . . . quite the post. But I wasn't talking about a Dyson Sphere, more of being able to artificially accelerate the star's death and harvest the energy and raw materials that come out of it (i.e. helium, and as it decays into heavier elements, those too) and eventually "kill" it and darken all planets in the system, at least for all your conventional, smaller stars, like our Sun.

Again, why be a wuss and "conservatively" harness the star's energy with that little Dyson Sphere thingy when you can destroy it for MAD SCIENCE!!!? Also, for the much more massive stars, there would be a point, where after harnessing it, it could have a chance to go 2 ways. Both involve a supernova, so sticking around to watch it is a bad idea (I'm running off wikipedia, so a lot of this is probably wrong, but still). After it though, it could turn into a neutron star, or a lovely black hole. Instead of simply rendering planets dark and barren though, these stars will render them . . . well . . .



With a hefty side of gamma rays and extreme light on the side of course.

 

Ah. I can't imagine anything that would require the truly massive amount of energy generated by catalysing the fusion reaction of a star, except, perhaps, catalysing the fusion reactions of another star. I like the idea of providing new planet types to explore that can only be created by blowing up a star, though the part about providing resources might be a tad unbalanced..

 

Just like Redstone is a mystery to 89% of all Minecraft players, and wiring in Terraria to 30.4% of it's players.

 

I'm not saying they should have to run wires everywhere (though it would be cool if that was an optional setting in my opinion). Just put down some generators, find a fuel source (i.e. uranium or something) and the power goes wherever it is needed automatically. If the base you built on a planet it just a basic place to land and take cover, there could be non-powered alternatives to "wooshing" doors and light bulbs, like regular wooden doors and torches (very Terrariaesque). Wait a minute, there's wiring in Terraria?

 

Well, in this world, I think exceptions can be made, mainly to have cool stuff or convienience. IDK about you, but having to travel across a 100,000 light year across galaxy wouldn't be the most enthralling gameplay experience if we're using real time. Also, regarding the sheer amount of energy it'd take to facilitate the death of a star, and the sheer amount of ohmygodsomuchhelium and other elements, it could be balanced out by requiring a huge amount of energy input and technology to do and getting a huge amount out (maybe by harvesting planets and then smaller stars?).

In balancing resources though, there isn't any way, unless you can somehow compress it down to somehow, someway fit onto your ship, that you could harvest all of it at one time. You'd have to leave some parts behind to drift slowly into space, which would have dissipated enough by the time you return that there's hardly any left.

Edit: Hit the enter button too quickly . . . there goes 10 mins of writing. Had to shorten it a bit.

 

Making you the 30.4%

 

POWER!

 

i would suggest nuclear fusion cores to generate energy

 

Don't worry - I'm sure there will be a good balance between the puzzle of providing power and simplicity for the game's sake.

I'm okay with wireless transmission of power - but running cables also seems like a ton of fun. I hope this is added!

 

Ok, redstone in minecraft is really easy, however making gates and such would be harder fot not knowing players.
Wiring in Terraria is a mustery though, I've been able to make a door open and close by a pressure plate, and then I'm stuck .

On topic:
I think I saw a post like this before these suggestion pagea came, I also think I either saw an update about it or heard it from ockpii...

 

Well as the player advances pre-mature forms of energy won't be enough. These powerful and dangerous energy sources could be a good way to keep everything powered up as things get bigger and better.

 

Strip the flesh! Salt the wound!

 

Energy to keep the base operative? Sounds cool but also demanding... example: you want to go to explore the planet but when you return you find that your base is offline, maybe invaded/destroyed by some monster... and that's BAD.
Solutions:
- not everithing in the base is powered by energy;
- HUGE batteries;
- A bar on the screen that shows how much energy left your base have;
- Auto refilling system (solar panels and similar); Green power the answer is!
- Some magical crystal for those who just don't want to worry about this.