Make uranium only available on planets/moons instead

Pyrald Lystent shared this feedback 10 months ago
Submitted

More specifically, make uranium only available on planets/moons in world files with planets, rather than stripping it from planets/moons. Worlds without planets should still see uranium generated in asteroids though.

This will drive players to the (currently) practically almost useless planets, rather than driving them into deep space in their search for uranium. At the same time, worlds without planets, possibly for performance reasons, will not be effected.

Comments (7)

photo
1

I would suggest a boolean that would be set to true once a planet/moon is present in the world, and would stop further generated asteroids from spawning with uranium.

photo
3

I was about to suggest this myself. Removing uranium from asteroids has several advantages:

  • it's realistic. Uranium is distributed rather uniformly in rocks. In order to form ores that can be exploited, it needs to undergo very specific geological transformations that only occur on large bodies.
  • something OP mentioned -- it makes visiting planets something you actually need to do and encourages you to go through engineering challenges to create an efficient transport chain from the planet to space.
  • it makes solar power more important. Splitsie once complained in his survival videos that it's too easy to fill your reactor with uranium and never have to worry about power anymore. If uranium takes a hassle to get, solar-powered craft will be much more attractive.

photo
2

definitely no.

photo
2

So much argument. Such discussion. Wow.

photo
1

thank you :) lol

it shouldnt have been entirely removed from planets either, i personally dont mind, as i play that way on planets anyway, but different people play different ways.

people like their uranium powered space ships, as do i, and having to go planet side just to get uranium in a vanilla game is not a good thing, so removing uranium from space is just, No :)

photo
1

Uranium should be in both planets and asteroids. Generate a little uranium on planets, much more in asteroids. This would help ensure that players have *just* enough to get by on a planet for a medium base and a ship. This would help to encourage players to want to do space mining.

photo
1

That was originally the case, but what it just meant was more stone being ejected during the mining process.


On another note I think I see what keen is trying to do: having people start on planets, then go to space. Which would mean that planets are visited with reason, except there was still the space start where planets could be bypassed altogether.

photo
photo
2

Agreed! Ores are already annoying to find on planets (compared to pretty much crashing into them in space) removing uranium from planets makes the only reason for going planet side to be roleplay. Starting on planets is also much harder without uranium, not everyone wants to have a ship made of solar panels.

photo
1

well that argument is irrelevant, this new update adds the wind turbines and reduced cost of batteries for large grids, makes gas tank capacity double what it was, and reduced fuel usage on hydro thrusters, to help with the balance, so its still a No for removing uranium from space and it being planet only, and there are players that despise planets and dont even have planets in their 'play', where as planet lovers cant exactly remove space from their game lol (unless you MOD out the ability to get to space)

photo
1

Both of those perspectives are idiotic. You should be prepared to dive to any environment in the game and the game should encourage people to explore it in its fullest.

Out of curiosity, would you support readding platinum to planets just so "space haters" wouldn't need to fly to space to build missiles?

photo
1

the point was that games can be made to not have planets in, but games can NOT be made to not have space in :)

photo
1

But the game does have planets. It's a waste not involving them in the gameplay. And currently, all the planets amount to is alternate starts that try their hardest to convince players to leave and never come back. Oh, and maybe Europa is a good refueling station for hydrogen.

photo
1

for you and me its great having them maybe, but as i said, it is an option not to have them in the game, so making something planet only with no other possible way to mine it in space is just NOT a good idea, whereas the silicon idea i may have posted earlier is a better idea, silicon ore ONLY on planets, and have a little more silicon come from stone, that way there will still be silicon in the vast amounts of stone in space from asteroids...

photo
1

Or just return it to how it was as not everyone is after "Hardcore"survival and just wants to use their uranium powered ships and bases (like me) because solar, battery, hydrogen engine's, and turbine's just simply don't output even close to the amount most my ships need to operate, and some might arue, "than go play creative" no that's not the point, i love building and testing my creations in survival" but i'm not playing it to go through a 5 day grind to find uranium because it's stupidly rare to come across in space and non excistent on planets now.

photo
photo
1

I would also argue a point no one has brought up yet. The removal of uranium on planets has made a huge amount of blueprints on the workshop useless. Lots of atmo ships relied on it. It makes more sense the other way around, although it really depends upon how keen sees, early, late game and where that should be taking place.

photo
1

thats partly a problem, but if you fly to space, and get uranium, your atmo ships will then be able to use it :P

also the new h2 engine can run a few o2/h2gens easily breaking the laws of thermo-dynamics and cheating enough power for everything, just need a script to turn o2/h2gens off when all tanks (inc the h2 engine's internal) are full, and a fuckton of ice/batteries

photo
photo
2

I'm all for a reason to visit planet, but 99% against this particular idea.

photo
1

Care to share why?

photo
1

So you just (literally on the discord) call my idea "half-baked" and don't explain why you think so? Ditto.

photo
1

Because Uranium is an OP "easy button". Once you have it, your energy problems are over. No reason to build wind or solar anymore. On planet you have wind turbines (which currently are way too consistent). I like the progression that you have to go to space to get platinum and uranium.

photo
1

Thankyou.


Also, What if the uranium did not spawn on starter worlds instead?

photo
1

All the base worlds are starter worlds, depending upon the scenario. One cannot modify it so that uranium only spawns in a planet dependent upon the scenario. Adding something like this would be hellishly hard to accomplish. Focusing upon just starter worlds would create problems with compatibility with modded planets and custom scenarios. Either one would break every custom planet (which Keen has done enough where modders like myself are not happy), every custom scenario, or create a massive imbalance with custom worlds with planets.

For these reasons, trying to add 'exceptions' is a pretty horrible idea.


Since the semi-recent update added in a new tiered technology system, uranium isn't a hard requirement to get into space anymore. Keeping uranium in asteroids, and perhaps tweaking the propensity of spawning to make it rarer would further make it so that players would be more encouraged to explore a much larger area.

As for going on planets versus asteroids, planets have an overall higher concentration of elements, which would make mining them more beneficial than just mining asteroids. Another option is to make it so that asteroids would only have SOME elements while planets would have others.

Changing the propensity which things spawn in asteroids would be less of a headache than planets, BY FAR.

photo
1

Too many of the current worlds are starter worlds IMO. They can reduce the starter worlds (for example, removing the lunar starts), and then add uranium back to the planets that no longer have a start.

That is for the standard 'solar system' world scenario. As for the other scenarios (like easy lunar start), if it matters that much, they can create a duplicated of the starting planet, would be reverted back to having no uranium, and use that in just said scenario. The difficulty of doing this is so trivial that even I can do it.

photo
1

In reality, uranium is rare on asteroids. The main deposits on the planets and some moons. Flying into deep space becomes quite problematic, without a large supply of uranium on a ship with high power consumption.

photo
1

would there be a way to give the spawner a minimum distance from surface for uranium? this way it would naturally be more rare on asteroids as it would be limited to only the largest.

photo
photo
1

What about: small ore patches (less than 1kg refined) at asteroids.

Uranium on planets, but at least 100m deep (barely enough for large grid ore detector).

Stone should refine also to bit of ice.