Base Energy Usage Question

[tornnight]

A base has
- 100 energy from energy collectors
- 200 energy from reactors
- 50 static energy usage
- displays 150 excess energy

How much energy is available for weapons use? 150 or 250?

[Sithuk]

Torn: As far as I can tell no one has ever been able to determine the Energy Collector collection formula. The Galpedia mentions that the generation is dependent on the solar flux and the distance from the star. Forum users have said in the past that the energy generated stated in the design screen is the actual energy generated regardless of distance and star brightness.

I haven't seen the devs state conclusively one way or the other on the many threads about Energy Collectors. My preference would be for the number stated on the design screen to be the number generated when stationary in a solar system. I can't confirm that is the way the system works though.

Is anyone willing to conclusively state the Energy Collector generation formula?

[Data]

i would expect 250

[Litjan]

I am not sure, but I would say it depends - if it is build in deep space (no solar power) it would be 150, if it is in a solar system I would think it is 250 (since it is always stationary).

Jan

[Pipewrench]

250

your collecting 100 from collectors of which you are using 50
the reactor will turn on if weapons are needed in which case you gain 200


if your static usage is greater then your energy collection then the reactors are forced to work and you burn fuel

edit:

but this is if you are stationary and near a star,

you move and the collectors are turned off

[Data]

good argument, so we can test this....do you see any fuel consumed, tornnight? if not, we've got our answer
if you don't have this setup i can test it but it will take some time, i'm away from the game for a few days

[Sithuk]

I would be interested to see the test results too. Does an Energy Collector provide the number stated in the design screen or is the energy generated altered by the distance from the star and the star's intensity as stated in the Galpedia and suggested on numerous threads on Energy Collectors since the game's launch.

A definitive answer would be appreciated.

[Data]

the definite answer was given in a thread, not sure if by Elliot or another one of us testing, and the distance does not affect the collector's energy output...they always generate the same basic amount wherever they are in a system.....the pedia should be changed to reflect this; or better yet the collectors should be changed to reflect the pedia [:)]

[Pipewrench]

pressed for time today but ran 2 tests



1st test
designed a cruiser with 1 reactor and 12 beam weapons and reduced size to conform to ship size limits

attacked a pirate

the cruiser only fired only limited beams and energy was tapped out due to movement (collectors turned off) 1 reactor ran everything



2nd test
I deleted all my mining bases

changed the designs of both mining base  and gas mining base to only keep 1 reactor, build 12 beam weapons and add 6 extra collectors

built 2 construction ships and automated builds

they rebuilt the bases with the new design and when pirates attacked

the energy level stayed constant when attacked and pirates were obliterated. (exploit)

hope someone finds something different.....interesting problem

[BigWolfChris]

Why's it an exploit?  That's working as intended, your energy collection exceeded your energy usage, even during combat
Since bases are stationary, their collectors work all the time

[Data]

i agree with BigWolf, this is wad...and a great feature

[tornnight]

Yep. I think the bug is the display for "excess energy".

The game should detect if it's a ship or base by whether or not it has thrusters, and then correctly display the excess energy.

[Data]

actually, this is not a problem either as that is the excess energy report for the reactor so it's ok also
what we'd need would be an overall energy available section but since this can be deduced easily even now i'm not sure if it's such a big improvment...but i'm subjective, i loved the energy section in the designs the first time i saw it (one of the big reasons why i jumped on this game asap)

[aprezto]

The confusion I have with this is the 'maximum energy used by weapons' listing when you create a design. This does what it says, multiplying the energy usage of a weapon by the number you have in the design, but it does not seem to take into consideration the energy used by the engines when they're at full thrust, which is usually the case in combat.
The energy usage can be found in the thrust graph or by multiplying the number of engines by the energy rating of each engine.
 
The point being that I fell into the trap of making designs with enough weapons to accommodate the amount of spare energy (energy produced by reactors less static energy), but was not taking into account the amount engines used when the were burning. Consquently my designs were not maximising the weapons I'd put on board.
 
This is a little OT, as obviously an energy collector only works when the ship isn't moving; not the situation in combat, and this ambiguity doesn't happen with bases, as they don't have engines. But I believe this is a bit of a GUI design flaw.

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: BigWolf

Why's it an exploit?  That's working as intended, your energy collection exceeded your energy usage, even during combat
Since bases are stationary, their collectors work all the time

yes but the exploit is in the fact that the human player can re-design a megabase that really does not use fuel, as the reactor never turns on. The AI uses ship designs that when firing weapons force the reactors on , hence fuel usage.

if you see in scanning that the AI uses collection to power everything while stationary and never use fuel when firing then I withdraw my exploit remark and apologize.

I installed scanners on my explorer and went into an enemy system

on 1 defensive base it has

16 max blasters = 16 x 12 = 192
6 collectors = 4 x 24 = 96
3 fission reactors

if i am not mistaken this design requires 2 reactors to come on line just to fire all weapons and forces the AI to set aside more fuel storage.

[ggf31416]

I don't have the expansion yet but in the vanilla DW it's hardly an exploit because building enough energy collectors to provide energy is more expensive than building enough reactors.
Energy Collector EC-100 20 resources = $160 output 24 $/Out = 6,7
Fission Reactor FS-100 26 resources = $208 output 59 $/Out = 3,5

Higher building cost usually means also higher manteinance costs, so you save fuel but pay in manteinance. However the cost of extra fuel cells have to be considered as well.

It's easy to tell if energy collectors produce the stated energy regardless from the distance. Create a base design with the static energy usage equal to the energy collection and insert itat different distance from the sun using the editor.
In vanilla DW that results in all the bases inside the system losing only 1 fuel and nothing more and the baes outside the system losing their fuel and eventually ending without energy. So energy collectors produce the stated amount of energy as long as the ship/base it's not moving and it's inside the system.

[Data]

and not only in systems with stars but also in gas glouds as these have solar energy as well....stunning

[BigWolfChris]

Data, IIRC, anything that isn't deep space has solar energy that collectors can feed from

ORIGINAL: pipewrench

ORIGINAL: BigWolf

Why's it an exploit?  That's working as intended, your energy collection exceeded your energy usage, even during combat
Since bases are stationary, their collectors work all the time

yes but the exploit is in the fact that the human player can re-design a megabase that really does not use fuel, as the reactor never turns on. The AI uses ship designs that when firing weapons force the reactors on , hence fuel usage.

if you see in scanning that the AI uses collection to power everything while stationary and never use fuel when firing then I withdraw my exploit remark and apologize.

I installed scanners on my explorer and went into an enemy system

on 1 defensive base it has

16 max blasters = 16 x 12 = 192
6 collectors = 4 x 24 = 96
3 fission reactors

if i am not mistaken this design requires 2 reactors to come on line just to fire all weapons and forces the AI to set aside more fuel storage.

Well, I get what you're pointing out, but as noted by ggf31416, collectors cost more, both in resources and money (you have to make a base weaker if you want to keep the same price)

I personally have only 1 reactor on all of my designs, and cover static, weapon fire and shield recharging by solar collectors alone

However, the easy way to close the issue is to either let the AI also design bases in the same manner
Or (and this would be quite realistic I'd imagine), Energy Collectors work at part-efficiency for, say, 2 seconds after the shield is impacted, and maybe go completely offline for a couple of seconds if it's hull is hit

Of course, we could just build lot more collectors, but eventually the upkeep costs would simply not be worth it

Oh, and for the flip side, I can easily build a similar strength base running purely off of reactors, the key is ensuring it has enough fuel capacity to not need refuelling to often
I also design two types of Weapon Platforms, one running purely on collectors, the other purely on reactors, now while I've yet to have either design in combat, I dare say both will be very efficient in combat

Also, the reactor design is still cheaper despite being 35points larger, and that's using the first reactors which are the largest and least efficient, if I replace them with Fusion Reactors, the base is smaller even cheaper, and then I can even have one less reactor, making it cheaper and smaller again

[Pipewrench]

ORIGINAL: BigWolf


I personally have only 1 reactor on all of my designs, and cover static, weapon fire and shield recharging by solar collectors alone

However, the easy way to close the issue is to either let the AI also design bases in the same manner
Or (and this would be quite realistic I'd imagine), Energy Collectors work at part-efficiency for, say, 2 seconds after the shield is impacted, and maybe go completely offline for a couple of seconds if it's hull is hit

Of course, we could just build lot more collectors, but eventually the upkeep costs would simply not be worth it

Oh, and for the flip side, I can easily build a similar strength base running purely off of reactors, the key is ensuring it has enough fuel capacity to not need refuelling to often
I also design two types of Weapon Platforms, one running purely on collectors, the other purely on reactors, now while I've yet to have either design in combat, I dare say both will be very efficient in combat

Also, the reactor design is still cheaper despite being 35points larger, and that's using the first reactors which are the largest and least efficient, if I replace them with Fusion Reactors, the base is smaller even cheaper, and then I can even have one less reactor, making it cheaper and smaller again

totally in your camp with what you are saying

if you want an idea on what the AI is doing run a hands off game for about an hour and see how its bases are setup. you would be surprised on its collectors and reactor ratio and with some they are very inefficient.


probably an oversight as there are so many things to tweak and priorities take the lead.

great post and it made me actually pay attention to fuel usage and collectors.[:)]