Survival Update: Uranium Harder
"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:
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.
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.