Survival Update: Uranium Harder

Blackbomber shared this feedback 1 week ago
Submitted

"We shall go on to the end. We shall fight on Mars, we shall fight on the ice lakes, we shall fight with growing confidence and growing strength in the air, we shall defend our Uranium, whatever the cost may be. We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in space, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender"

I told you that my fight to preserve Uranium isn't over Keen. You may have struck me down the first time, but you've only made me stronger. Especially after playing the Playtest, my resolve to preserve Uranium has only been strengthened. I ask that people who supported this fight the first time join me and support continuing the fight to support Uranium.

I'm not going to write everything that I written down the first time, because that would be pointless and what I said hasn't changed, although after playtesting Survival for myself I only have more complaints. To find my full explanation on why removing Uranium from planets is a bad idea you can click the following Link:

https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers/publictest/topic/survial-update-and-uranium-we-need-to-talk-about-it


There are also some good suggestions in the comments below.

Instead I will sum up what I said with how Kreeg (The Creator of ARMCO Star Wars Mod along with several other mods) summed it up:

"Uranium is the best power source, Planets have no actually practical energy source, and serves to just provide annoyances with no real reason to be on the planet."

And there you go, that sums up the removal of Uranium quite well. However that's not the end of this ticket, I have a few more things to add now that I have played the Survival update for myself. Once again I will offer my compromise at the End/Conclusion.

1. Hydrogen Engines are just... Just Useless

I would like to talk with the person who added the Hydrogen engine into the game, because for the one thing I was most excited about for the Survival update it is an utter and complete disappointment. I can't even wrap my mind around it. I tested the Hydrogen engine out on a few and not to my surprise, the Hydrogen engine fails to power every single current build I have. I could not even power a rather large small grid hover tank, now before you say that the Hydrogen Engine is not made for powering a Hover Craft, no it could not even power most of the rovers I have. With that in mind I know for a fact that it could not even power any of my atmospheric miners or welders. The Hydrogen Engine by far might be more inferior that Solar and batteries. I could not even power a single hover craft with 2-4 Hydrogen Engines filled to the max with Ice. This is not even the worst part of the Hydrogen Engine, the Hydrogen Engine requires TWO BLOCKS just to function, which means you need to have space for the O2 Generator and the Hydrogen Engine. That's not even the best part! You need another power source just to be able to operate the Hydrogen Engine. That means the Hydrogen Engine is useless without already having batteries already powering your ship, hovercraft, or rover. And the O2 Generator needs 100 Kw just to operate so one small battery is not enough to jumpstart the O2 Generator to start fueling the Hydro Engine. I'd love to speak to the Genius who though this was a smart idea to have a power source need ANOTHER power source just to operate. You wanna know how I even managed to jump start the O2 Generator? It wasn't with 20 batteries. Oh No. It was one SMALL NUCLEAR REACTOR. A Hydrogen Engine serves no purpose other than a backup power source or a rover so basic that its only purpose is to drive around and have no other function. Not even after I powered off a majority of the things on my hovercraft could I power the hovercraft with 1 let alone 2 Hydro Engines. And as I stated If it can't even power that how is it going to power a Atmospheric Miner that consumes a ton of power thanks to its atmospheric thrusters.

2. Keens Mission Statement

I'm not sure if you remember Keen, but your mission statement for Space Engineers is hat Space Engineers is to play our own story. Well Keen I cant play my story because my story has uranium on planets and almost everything being powered by Nuclear Energy. This resorts back to my original point in my original post. Keen should not be forcing players to play their way, Space Engineers is suppose to be our story and we play how we want. If people want to play without Uranium that's fine, but you should not be forcing people who want to play WITH URANIUM, to play without it just because others want to play without it. So Keen perhaps you should honor your Mission statement of letting players play their own story and own way.

CONCLUSION:

This time I put the conclusion in bold letters so people don't suggest something that I already suggested or maybe if you just wanted to skip down to the Conclusion you can find it easier. My suggestion is relatively unchanged. Keen should either

A. Remove Uranium from Space entirely and keep them on planets (Giving planets some actual value) and make Uranium spawns even more rare on planets, but not too rare that players can't find anything.

B. OR alternatively give players the option to toggle whether or not they want uranium to generate when players start up a new world/solar system/scenario while those who do want it to generate on worlds, still make it where its rare to find. That way you make both parties happy.

C. My new suggestion since I have heard B would not be easy, is that Keen simply not remove Uranium at all and make it more rare on planets and asteroids thus making it less abundant. Decrease Uranium's Generation on planets or the amount that there is. You could also just make it deeper underground.

D. Suggestion D is the same as Suggestion C except Keen could make Uranium nerfed where Uranium yields less in Refineries or that you mine less of it. Something of this nature would be preferable than just saying "Lets just delete Uranium all together instead of trying to fix it."

I won't give up this Fight Keen. I shall continue to fight to protect Uranium and keep it on Earth and planets all together.

#NuclerEnergyMatters

f891d114db3cf31093d3b9e127554a82

Comments (21)

photo
1

well hydro engines arent 'useless' they just have a use that you are not aware of, or just dont/wont play that way, but i still agree on uranium being back on planets, just rare...

photo
3

Their use is a niche case. At the moment, other power sources are simply superior, less maintenance, and do not require a second power source to work in the first place.

photo
1

nor do they require absurd amount of space to operate

photo
photo
7

I just would like Keen to move Uranium to the Inferno parts of planets so there would be a reason to experience Inferno temperature and some deep mining fun too. I think its silly to remove them COMPLETELY from planets when we have them in RL. Just make it rarer or shove them DEEP underground or both. :)


Also a visor effect/overlay base on the temperature would be nice.

https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers/publictest/topic/make-the-new-temperature-mechanic-have-visual-effects_1

photo
1

I've talked exactly about this in discrod, great idea.

photo
photo
6

Uranium is quite overpowered, in space and on planets. It really needs a overhaul.

My suggestion is to make it harder to use. But it should be available everywhere (but more rarer). The output amount should be the same as now, but it should need more additional blocks to be functional. Here two ideas:

- cooling system. You need a cooler which needs to be filled with a lot of ice to generate cooling water. If you have not enough coolers or not enough water in the cooler than the reacor should overheat and decreases its output drastically. (or just simply explode XD)

- more complex production chain of uranium. Add some more blocks which are required to process uranium ore to be a usable reactor fuel. Maybe some enrichment methods like gas centrifuge.

photo
4

I like the idea of uranium reactor needing cooling. Perhaps just on high outputs.

photo
3

I agree, uranium and nuclear reactor are definitely overpowered in their current state.

1. Once you find a uranium depot/vein you are golden and energy isnt a challenge for a very long time.

-> There should be a risk/reward situation when you are going after uranium, like AI is also pursuing uranium which will let to encounters with AI when you try to get uranium.


2. Like you said it is far to simple to build a uranium powered craft. For uranium we have a 1x1x1 nuclear reactor. For hydrogen you need the engine, a power source and generators or tanks (which are ridiculusly huge). Sure, hydrogen can stay the more challenging power source, but nuclear power should not be as simple as it currently is. Like with hydrogen there should be more stuff required around it to work.


3. Uranium is easy to process and is just stored in a regular cargo container, which can be very small. Like you suggested Keen could consider to make processing uranium more complex, maybe even the storage of uranium too.

photo
photo
2

Pretty sure this idea is "too complex" and Keen will use it in "future projects".

"Keeen Support Team"


PS: I will fight for uranium on planets too!

photo
1

I suggested a small compromise of moving some uranium to inferno sections of planets. So we can have a reason to experience inferno temperature and deep underground mining.

https://support.keenswh.com/spaceengineers/publictest/topic/put-some-uranium-in-inferno-sections-of-planets

photo
2

I don't think the game should be easier (but in fact, should be harder in a smarter way), and I don't think our past builds and the way we designed in the past should have any serious weight (or any at all) in game balance decisions.

But the current balance of the game is still off. In a different way than before, but still off. Suggestions like having uranium veins in the deep planets core, and uranium veins being small have very low yield, and requiring more complex and demanding refining and manufacturing, and having it increase in a smart way the PVE challenges, are taken as a whole a very good path for better balance and better emergent gameplay.

And Keen should definitely support better emergent gameplay, that's cheap gameplay for them. But the devil is in the details of the implementation.

photo
1

With the new Survival system we'll be able to extract trace amounts of ore from Stone. Can anyone confirm whether that includes (or excludes) uranium?

I see where Keen are coming from here, removing large uranium deposits from planets. I've no problem with that. It definitely needs a nerf, as it relegates all other energy sources to obsolescence. Immediately.

But hey, if it's so that uranium cannot be obtained from stone (with a Survival kit) like other elements - which seems a bit overpowered to me - give us a special new Production Block, for the purpose of extracting solely uranium from stone (which kind of reflects how it's mined in the real world). I'm talking only a small amount, say 100k Stone = enough raw ore for a refinery to spit out 50 uranium ingots. Not a lot, but enough to power your first space-worthy ship. It would also serve as a decent compromise to me. It would give us access to nuclear power on a planet, but not remove the incentive to get to space where rich deposits can be found.

photo
1

No, uranium not included. Cobalt, silver, gold and some others also not included.

You get Gravel, Iron, Silicon and seems like one other, but I don't remember.

photo
1

Iron, Silicon, Nickel. You get gravel by refining stone in large refinery later. Also, removing uranium from planets even further destroys any reson to go to them. There is nothing beneficial on planets now and since you can start in space, why would you ever have to bother. Overcoming the gravity obstacle and using atmosphere is cool and all, but there is no survival reward for it.

photo
1

You sure about that? I thought sure I got gravel also from the kit. Something I didn't check is if you can get the metals from stone with the larger refineries or if that is a reason to keep the kit, besides the fact that it is smaller then the med bay.

photo
1

all 3; survival kit, basic refinery and "normal" refinery, gave gravel, iron, Nickel and Silicon.

There is no point in refining stone in the survival kit once you get the basic refinery and normal refinery as they give better output ratio.

Someone even noted that nickel was faster to get from stone than from nickel ore itself; refining speed of nickel ore is too slow.

photo
1

Thanks for confirmation. That's got to be bug re Nickel, and something that needs to be addressed.

The removal of pure uranium deposits on planets is ok with me, but I still think the idea of a 'uranium processor' block of sorts could solve this problem and appease both camps. It would give a planet-side player a route to extract - with some brute force refining, going through a lot of stone - at least trace quantities of uranium, enough to put a ship in orbit.

photo
photo
1

This whole shebang is a farce. There's no real need to remove Uranium, as it occurs naturally both on planets and in asteroids. It's a remnant of a stellar explosion, for crying out loud. I understand it needs balancing, but I put forth an idea for a fusion reactor that should help make nuclear reactors stop being so overpowered, and provide a valid reason for having uranium rarer than normal. Still, if you're removing Uranium from my planets, my planets will fight back with Stone Crusher AVAs and Gravel Resource Extractors to get that stuff.

photo
1

Uranium is simply too good. Once you find some you have unlimited super easy, super compact, super light(mass wise) power for pretty much ever. It's the easiest power to use and most effective power to use making power considerations irrelevant and all other power blocks useless. I am glad it was removed, though I would prefer if it were simply way more difficult to use.

photo
1

No I do not agree with this really. I am all for immersion but i for one do NOT want Uranium on planets.

It was simply to powerful and to common to find it.


I do however think they need to make combustion engines a lot better than they currently are!


I am not against player choice however, if we have the option to turn that on or off, Cool! :)

photo
1

Uranium should be rarer than it was, but not non-existent. It should be powerful because nuclear reactors are, well, powerful. That's the point. And in game, that makes for a nice final tier of power technology (at least for a near future setting). To that end, they should probably have a centrifuge block and it should probably be large and it should probably take a number of them to fuel a reactor running at full power. Nuclear power isn't easy, but more complex options (e.g. managing its temperature) aren't going to make the cut (though maybe having the reactor consume both ice and uranium would).