I only use a big powered base for energy hungry things and otherwise use smaller bases for minor stuff like scanning outposts. For small outposts the bio reactor is ideal. A moonpool recharching outpost would either run with solar panels or bioreactors. The big bases are best with thermal plants. Never said that I'd use the bioreactor for energy hungry tasks. And you don't need the energy hungry tasks in the small bases. Unless of course the devs increase the power consumption of things like the scanner room or moonpool.
But I forgot one good thing about the nuclear reactor: It would be safe from external damage through creature attacks. But creature attacks aren't implemented. Just imagine what happens if attacking creatures destroy your thermal plants or the power lines to your base ...
Maybe that's true in the past, but since base parts are going to all consume energy passively for lights and oxygen, even that seems like it'd make the bioreactor unfeasible as you'd have to constantly harvest something for it every time you visit - chances are you wouldn't even have energy for your vehicle, depending on the time differentials between your visits.
And as far as creatures attacking the thermal plants go, that'd be a con if nuclear and bioreactors weren't reblanced to make usable alternatives.
Maybe that's true in the past, but since base parts are going to all consume energy passively for lights and oxygen, even that seems like it'd make the bioreactor unfeasible as you'd have to constantly harvest something for it every time you visit - chances are you wouldn't even have energy for your vehicle, depending on the time differentials between your visits.
And as far as creatures attacking the thermal plants go, that'd be a con if nuclear and bioreactors weren't reblanced to make usable alternatives.
No, did so quite a few days ago. But I only run things I really need, so I use no exterior lights for these bases. You're right that they draw too much power. Oxygen support itself didn't consume power so far and if it would, it should only consume the power for the air you breathe and not use it if you are far away and no oxygen gets consumed. The plants itself might consume some power for internal lights and air support too, but what would be the formula and when would the devs implement that? Furthermore the scanner room right now draws no power and even in future might only do so while you are in station range.
So right now a bioreactor can support a passive station with a scanner room, moonpool and a few plants and even a fabricator. That shouldn't change in the future too much, as most of these parts have a zero to low usage when far away from the station.
And the bioreactor can be fed from base internal fast regrowing plants. Even if the devs change the growth rate, you could set up the right plants to still manage it. Right now I only need a single marblemelon pot to feed the bioreactor AND give me enough to eat and drink. So do this and you won't need to search for something to harvest.
From reading your post I think you never fed the bioreactor from food plants of a pot right beside the bioreactor. And further reading I think you might make the mistake of using external lights for smaller bases.
If creatures ever attack, a small base would be perfect with a bioreactor that can be refilled from the inside forever. A big base with nuclear reactors might run out of rods and you can't search for uranite while under attack. Also you won't loose much if creatures attack a minibase.
Have to agree with bioreactors for small facilities. A single mp room with all the furniture shouldn't draw much power if any as long as you aren't charging batteries or power cells. No filtration machine, external lights, or moonpool and the fabricator is only really there for cooking fish if you mess up your plants somehow. One of each plant and four marblemelons and you have a completely self-sustained system.
I will definitely have to give the bioreactor another chance for small outposts with this info... Didn't even think of using marblemelons... which I am now doubling down on my "so OP, make them 2x2 pls" stance. :P
I will definitely have to give the bioreactor another chance for small outposts with this info... Didn't even think of using marblemelons... which I am now doubling down on my "so OP, make them 2x2 pls" stance. :P
When growing Marblemelons, they should only grow into small ones from seeds and then you can plant the small ones again to get big ones. This would mean twice the growth time, more planter space needed and more interaction to get the big ones.
I flirted with a bioreactor briefly, but I think what I consider a minimum base is just too large for one reactor.
At minimum a base must have 3 powercell rechargers, 1 battery charger, 1 fabricator, 1 water purifier, 1 scanner room, and 2 small planters for marble melons. 1 Moonpool is optional, but almost always have one so I can park a sub.
That's definitely not what I consider a "minimum base". XD "Marblemelons, storage, and a fabricator" is pretty much what I need out of a base... which all fits on the cyclops, which is why I don't do secondary bases very often... xD
Which actually brings to mind, if the devs want secondary bases to be more important: Critical structures that don't fit on the Cyclops. I think they are trying that with the water purifier, but marblemelons make that pointless.
But suppose, for example, that blood kelp could only be grown beneath a certain depth and benzene was something you needed in reasonable quantities for some reason? People would build a second base to farm blood kelp. Or suppose you needed a MPR-only device to "process" kyanite before it could be used, and make the raw kyanite take a lot of inventory space for the quantity you need. Much more likely people will build a base specifically for kyanite processing.
The main reason I typically only build one real base is because everything I might ever want to farm can be brought back to my base, and the shallow areas are the only reliable sources of titanium.
No, did so quite a few days ago. But I only run things I really need, so I use no exterior lights for these bases.
You kinda missed my point, there, which is that this method was feasible in the past but no longer is now because of the impending changes to power consumption we have now been made aware off (passive energy drain for lights and oxygen). Any example you use as of this point in time is irrelevant to that because it does not reflect the impact of the changes the Devs intend to implement in the next few months.
You're right that they draw too much power. Oxygen support itself didn't consume power so far and if it would, it should only consume the power for the air you breathe and not use it if you are far away and no oxygen gets consumed. The plants itself might consume some power for internal lights and air support too, but what would be the formula and when would the devs implement that? Furthermore the scanner room right now draws no power and even in future might only do so while you are in station range.
IDK if the devs would consider that being "realistic," though - not unless the option was installed to physically shut off the lights and oxygen for when you're departing it. As it stands though... "realistically", it would draw power regardless of if you're in it or not, just like battery chargers draw power to recharge batteries when you leave them be.
So right now a bioreactor can support a passive station with a scanner room, moonpool and a few plants and even a fabricator. That shouldn't change in the future too much, as most of these parts have a zero to low usage when far away from the station.
But again, any example from right now isn't going to reflect if it's feasible after these changes are made - in the past, when base parts not consuming power passively was the norm, it would have worked better; now though, until we actually see what the net requirements are for passive power use, we can't treat these options as optimal anymore. Heck, the battery charger seems more like a good idea of how this would function, since if it's got something to put power towards (charging batteries), it'll draw power for that regardless of if you're in the base or not. And if base parts are made to draw power passively, none of what you described (which uses power actively rather than passively) would serve as a counter to that, let alone a means to predict the impact on energy charge.
And the bioreactor can be fed from base internal fast regrowing plants. Even if the devs change the growth rate, you could set up the right plants to still manage it. Right now I only need a single marblemelon pot to feed the bioreactor AND give me enough to eat and drink. So do this and you won't need to search for something to harvest.
That doesn't do anything for keeping the base charged while you're gone and away, though. If you have a fuel source in the base, that only goes as far as having a power source - it doesn't go towards maintaining that power while you're gone. What good does it do if you come back to the base, find it on zero power and have to wait x-amount of time (1 energy per 12 seconds) for the Bioreactor to generate enough power to even charge the Seamoth with on top of passive energy consumption for oxygen and lights? If the base passively consumes the power-store while you're gone and you come back to find it dead, you'll have to harvest all your plants and stick them in the reactor and possibly go out hunting for more to expedite the procedure anyway.
From reading your post I think you never fed the bioreactor from food plants of a pot right beside the bioreactor. And further reading I think you might make the mistake of using external lights for smaller bases.
Actually, I've used every compostable item, including hatched creatures from the containment unit - it's that it (A) charges power too slowly and (B) runs out if left alone if you rely on the plants or are gone for too long, what with the new plans for passive energy drain. Furthermore, I wasn't talking about external lights at any point - I was talking about how, in the future, the passive drain for lights and oxygen by base parts are likely going to mirror the effects of drain from items like external lights. My point is that the changes to power the devs are going to implement make this method unfesable for future use.
If creatures ever attack, a small base would be perfect with a bioreactor that can be refilled from the inside forever. A big base with nuclear reactors might run out of rods and you can't search for uranite while under attack. Also you won't loose much if creatures attack a minibase.
No - honestly speaking, I personally think a small base would be anything but perfect, between passive energy drain from the dev's planned future rebalancing depleating the energy reserve when you're gone and the bioreactor itself not being able to produce energy fast enough to recoup the loss or drain in high-intensity areas like the ILZ with the lava larva. And if you lose said minibase... well, with the game pretty much forcing you to build a base as a waypoint for the Lost River, you arguably could lose a lot depending on where the base you lose was placed. Plus, the Bioreactor arguably has the same issue as the nuclear reactor if you run out of materials mid-attack and can't replenish them in time. There really is no perfect answer for this anymore.
I think you're too focused and blinded by a future you fear. And even if everything would be as bad as you considered, let's make an example:
Possible future setting:
Bases draw power for internal light and air. The rate of drawing power for air and internal light exceeds what 1 bioreactor can deliver to uphold the station. That would be more than 1 energy unit each 12 seconds. Let's caclulate in X bioreactors to sustain air and internal lights of a station.
So you need X+1 bioreators to recharge a ministation. Right now X=0 and if the devs are reasonable in future, X wouldn't be greater than 1. If the devs do something crazy like X=2 or greater, than they just tease the players and kill their game, as you will need too much bioreactors as a minimum. But if the bioreactor requirements are cheap the player could still manage it. I even bet that the X will be less than 1, so that 1 bioreactor could be enough to not only keep a base active, but also recharge an empty bioreactor while keeping it active.
Then there is the issue of the base running out of the energy stack of the bioreactors while you are away and you return to a non powered base. But you error in that you have to wait until you harvested and the base taking awefully slow time to recharge. Because:
Your minibase with X+1 bioreactors only needs the equivalent of X bioreactors to get active and thus gets immediately active without waiting
Your base won't suffer consequences for being dead while you're away.
You don't need to search and harvest for long. You just pick your plants a few meters away and thus immediately activate station power.
Even if the future law is that plants without air would rot, you just get them from your external plant growbed nearby.
If the plants without air survive, than you can just pick the ready ones from the pots near the bioreactors.
If the devs reduce growth time than just use more plant pots or beds, which is cheap.
So the base might be dead when you're away. But you can awake it in no time and don't have to wait. Unless you make the next errors:
Use machines in your minibase that consume massive energy in a short time, like battery or power cell rechargers.
Forget to carry an extra power cell in your inventory and never use recharger modules for vehicles.
You're one of those people that wait to refuel until your vehicle is almost empty, until one day you run out of fuel.
You should never forget that a minibase is just that: minimalistic. It doesn't offer you the luxury of power hungry passive needs that should be kept at your big bases. The only massive needed energy drainer would be the vehicle recharging. Unless the devs make scanning an energy hungry buisness (although the devs so far preferred small tiny scanning bases and thus would revert their policy). Which gets to the one valid weakness:
Small moonpool outpost won't work if the player is unable to turn a base into passive powerless mode once he leaves the base. Should be possbile for the devs to turn base power consumption to zero after leaving.
But for small purposes like feeding the player and scanning resources, even bases running out of energy would work. Dead bases for weak energy usage are back in zero time upon entering.
I found it very useful for an outpost in the blood kelp biome, near the entry to the lost river. Given the lack of bio-matter (you can't use spinefish in the blender) the only option was a nuclear plant that has never been a concern.
I found it very useful for an outpost in the blood kelp biome, near the entry to the lost river. Given the lack of bio-matter (you can't use spinefish in the blender) the only option was a nuclear plant that has never been a concern.
You know that you only need a single plant pot and marblemelon seeds that regrow in no time to feed marblemelons to your bioreactor without ever leaving the base?
Or 2 pots with each a lantern tree carrying dozens of fruits?
Or I think you can even feed blood oil to the bioreactor?
Not to forget you can place an external growbed with creepvine clusters there that not only feed your bioreactor but also acts as a lighttower in the dark.
I think you're too focused and blinded by a future you fear.
And likewise, I think you're too focused on what's currently possible to really think about what will happen when the balance that makes these options possible shifts. I don't feel I'm "blinded" so much as just wary, given how much trouble the Silent Running update alone has faced in balancing out compared to it's first iteration.
Possible future setting:
Bases draw power for internal light and air. The rate of drawing power for air and internal light exceeds what 1 bioreactor can deliver to uphold the station. That would be more than 1 energy unit each 12 seconds. Let's caclulate in X bioreactors to sustain air and internal lights of a station.
So you need X+1 bioreators to recharge a ministation. Right now X=0 and if the devs are reasonable in future, X wouldn't be greater than 1. If the devs do something crazy like X=2 or greater, than they just tease the players and kill their game, as you will need too much bioreactors as a minimum. But if the bioreactor requirements are cheap the player could still manage it. I even bet that the X will be less than 1, so that 1 bioreactor could be enough to not only keep a base active, but also recharge an empty bioreactor while keeping it active.
But it feels like you're still missing the key point, which is that this energy drain will still be happening while you're not at the base. The only way to really keep up would be if it was the main base where you're constantly on hand to ensure the fuel doesn't run out. Also, need I remind you that the Sea Dragon issues you yourself have commented on don't exactly forestall the idea that the devs are going to do things that both tease the players and kill the game for them. Not to mention that you're kind of off-focus on the issue - it's not whether the bioreactor can be managed; it's that it seems to torpedo the idea of using it for an occasionally-visited outpost as opposed to your live-in base, because there's no longer the guarantee there will be an energy store for you to stop and quickly fill up - you'd have stop and build the power up yourself, making it another case of grinding to get anywhere.
Then there is the issue of the base running out of the energy stack of the bioreactors while you are away and you return to a non powered base. But you error in that you have to wait until you harvested and the base taking awefully slow time to recharge. Because:
Your minibase with X+1 bioreactors only needs the equivalent of X bioreactors to get active and thus gets immediately active without waiting
Your base won't suffer consequences for being dead while you're away.
You don't need to search and harvest for long. You just pick your plants a few meters away and thus immediately activate station power.
Even if the future law is that plants without air would rot, you just get them from your external plant growbed nearby.
If the plants without air survive, than you can just pick the ready ones from the pots near the bioreactors.
If the devs reduce growth time than just use more plant pots or beds, which is cheap.
None of what you've said here actually feels like I'm in error, though, since what you're suggesting implies more effort to force it to work than should be necessary - especially since power is really what you're going to need the most of when you're not on the surface:
That doesn't factor into what happens if it runs out while you're not around to manage it, and with a rate of 1 energy every 12 seconds, you'd have to spend 2400 seconds (40 minutes) just getting enough energy to recharge one single normal power cell, and that's without counting the passive drain of the rest of the base parts. Being active is not the same as having the power to refuel your vehicles, so it's all but useless as anything but storage and a place to sleep unless you're willing to wait nearly an hour before continuing.
It's not the base suffering consequences that's the point though; it's that it becomes useless as the quick-stop charging station you suggested it would be, because there won't be an energy store to top off of unless you're constantly managing the bioreactor.
You will need to search and harvest quite a bit if you want to build enough power for your vehicles, especially if we're talking about a Cyclops - worse if it's Ion Cells that need charging. No single plant will provide enough energy, and the amount of time to build it up doesn't become any less an issue.
Same issue as above; it's still a ton of back-and-forth grinding that seems to kill the idea of being a stop-off outpost to quickly charge your vehicles so as to keep going forward with exploration. Your argument equates to it being possible if you force enough work into it, but mine is that the amount of work you have to do to make this work defeats the idea of it being a feasible and efficient quick-stop like you suggested it'd be.
Reduction of growth time doesn't fix the speed of energy generation upon arriving at a depowered base, which would eat up so much time as to basically kill your momentum and leave you stuck rather than quickly stopping off and going on your way.
So the base might be dead when you're away. But you can awake it in no time and don't have to wait. Unless you make the next errors:
Use machines in your minibase that consume massive energy in a short time, like battery or power cell rechargers.
Forget to carry an extra power cell in your inventory and never use recharger modules for vehicles.
You're one of those people that wait to refuel until your vehicle is almost empty, until one day you run out of fuel.
But you're missing the whole point; it's precisely because power is what you're going to need most. In that event, it doesn't matter if "you can awake it in no time" because you very much do have to wait if you want to get enough power built up to charge your vehicles, especially the Cyclops now that the onboard charger net-gain is axed out. In fact, what you list as "mistakes" are honestly the whole reason why anyone would even build small bases in the first place - to quickly stop off so as to keep exploring on. Hell, it's pretty much implied we're going to be forced to build a waypoint in the Lost River just to get to the ILZ safely, so you can't list what's pretty much a necessary function of small bases as a "mistake."
With the Cyclops' net-gain on chargers now gone, you'd need chargers or the like in these bases so as to effectively continue on your way.
Doesn't matter how many extra cells you carry if you don't have any way to effectively maintain the energy inside them. Especially in areas like the ILZ with the lava larva around. Bioreactors just can't compensate for that with their slow rate and quick-depleting fuel.
You assume that's always preventable, though. But depending on what you're facing, where you're heading or even allowing the possibility of potential mistakes, that kind of thing can't ever be guaranteed not to happen - human beings aren't perfect.
You should never forget that a minibase is just that: minimalistic. It doesn't offer you the luxury of power hungry passive needs that should be kept at your big bases. The only massive needed energy drainer would be the vehicle recharging. Unless the devs make scanning an energy hungry buisness (although the devs so far preferred small tiny scanning bases and thus would revert their policy).
But again, the whole point of even building a minibase should be to serve as a waystation from which to restore and refuel quickly and without issue. Being minimalistic doesn't change that - hell, serving a sole function like charging things is pretty minimalistic a function to devote a whole base to, as it's one single task. And again, with the whole "passive energy drain" feature that's to be implemented, there's no way to have a stockpile of energy established to make it feasible to leave be unless you're always maintaining it. If it ran on thermal energy it'd work, but bioreactors just cannot cut it in my opinion - especially if you have to become reliant on these waypoints to keep your energy up so you can get to places without running dry at some point.
Small moonpool outpost won't work if the player is unable to turn a base into passive powerless mode once he leaves the base. Should be possbile for the devs to turn base power consumption to zero after leaving.
But for small purposes like feeding the player and scanning resources, even bases running out of energy would work. Dead bases for weak energy usage are back in zero time upon entering.
But again, that's not something that's even confirmed to be possible; we don't know yet if the devs will make that an option, so we can't account for it yet.
And that's where your argument kind of misses the mark for me; "small purposes" like that can be achieved either by putting a planter in the Cyclops for the food/water issue, while the resource issue can be taken care of the old-fashioned way in most cases. The only thing you'd really need the outposts for as a necessity would be for energy, for which bases that run out of energy or are slow to build it up would not work. Turning them on isn't even the problem to begin with - maintaining that store and keeping it on without having to constantly provide for it is the issue, and especially if we're supposed to become reliant on such bases to maintain the energy to get all across the map. To that end, exhaustible reactors like the nuclear and bio just do not seem a feasible solution.
...i have like 4 water purifiers running at once (infamous for draining power)....
Why so many Water Filtration Plants? I have 4 total, a pair in two bases, with one base not in use. 2 produces water much faster than I consume it.
gotta stock up for those long trips, eliminates the need for looking for salt. that plus gotta use the up the spare space, plus thermal generators give more power than i know what to do with, can always add more of both. unless they balance power
It seems we are talking past each other. I mainly use minibases for non massive passive energy supplying purposes, like food, water, fabrication and scanning. Even future energy drain of bases for interior lights and air will allow me that as I explained that my case gives me instant base energy recovery without waiting. Zero waiting time.
Your outpost wants to have massive passive energy recharging services and that will never be gained by simple small bioreactors. You definitivly will need now and in future thermal plants to get what you need. You can and will never be satisfied with bioreactors or nuclear reactors for your purpose.
A completely different question is if devs will really implement passive energy base consumption for internal lights and air when you're far away. Because not only bioreactors would deplete, but also nuclear reactors and solar arrays would have to be very big to have enough capacity for the night discharging. So I assume the devs will only draw power for internal lights and air for a base if the player is inside the base.
It seems we are talking past each other. I mainly use minibases for non massive passive energy supplying purposes, like food, water, fabrication and scanning. Even future energy drain of bases for interior lights and air will allow me that as I explained that my case gives me instant base energy recovery without waiting. Zero waiting time.
No, you're not talking past me; I just disagree on needing the minibases for such a thing, since both are easily achievable without the effort of having to cart down resources to build one somewhere. Food, water and fabrication are (or were) all things that could be managed and done with the Cyclops just by having a Fabricator (and formally a Cell Charger until the power rebalances were put in), and some growbeads with Marblemelons, Potato Plants and Lantern Fruits; all your needs were met with said mobile base, making minibases only useful as power stop-offs - it honestly feels like a waste of effort to devote resources towards making a base for food and water when you can do that on the Cyclops easily.
Simply put, I just personally feel what you're using the bases for is... well, inefficient. I'm sorry in advance if that sounds rude, but it just doesn't strike me as worth it, which makes your case to defend it feel moot, because said cases are easily addressable without ever needing to build them in the first place. I'll be the first to admit it might be just a difference of playstyles, but I personally just feel that what you'd really need the minibases for now is power resupply, and that's something the bioreactor and nuclear reactor simply cannot manage.
Your outpost wants to have massive passive energy recharging services and that will never be gained by simple small bioreactors. You definitivly will need now and in future thermal plants to get what you need. You can and will never be satisfied with bioreactors or nuclear reactors for your purpose.
But using said base for something as comparatively easy-to-solve as food and water (again, via onboard growbeds for the Cyclops) seems a waste of space and resources. Same for fabrication, since it'd be easier to have that on the Cyclops for on-the-spot needs and than just replenish the energy at a stop-off point. Again, maybe it's just a difference in play-style, but what you're advocating doesn't feel practical without a lot of extra work involved. And honestly speaking, even for what you were suggesting, the bioreactors wouldn't work in your case either - at one point you noted that plants may be retooled to die when there's no power, so even if you could kick the lights on quickly, you still wouldn't have any plants alive at that point to feed on and therefore it'd be a moot goal.
A completely different question is if devs will really implement passive energy base consumption for internal lights and air when you're far away. Because not only bioreactors would deplete, but also nuclear reactors and solar arrays would have to be very big to have enough capacity for the night discharging. So I assume the devs will only draw power for internal lights and air for a base if the player is inside the base.
It's not really that much of a question to me, though; as I've said before, the battery chargers, water filtration systems and search lights consume power from the base for their respective tasks regardless of if you in and/or near it. Passive base energy consumption for oxygen and lights would likely be the same. The devs don't make those only trigger when you're around, so why would you assume they'd do any different for passive light-and-air power draw?
@The08MetroidMan
You're right with me having a different playstyle. I avoid driving around with the Cyclops. Although it's now better, it's still no fun to drive, too slow, an energy sinkhole (which seems to change soon) and has no mobile scanner room.
I prefer the Seamoth and Prawn (funny, it's faster than the Cyclops) for expeditions. Meanwhile I got used hopping around with my Prawn in the Lava Zone, so use the Cyclops even less. I might reconsider if the Cyclops standart speed is like the flank speed now.
Obviously you don't use the scanner room massively, because it's the main reason for my minibases. I would have prefered a mobile scanning to give the Cyclops more purpose, but the devs don't like a scanner room inside the Cyclops.
Right now my play is more like @The08MetroidMan than @zetachron as I prefer to take my well-kitted out Cyclops carefully around with me. I have a few bases, but it's one simple one under Lifepod 5 and two larger ones due to my switching my main base from over a central shaft to the Jelly Shroom Caves to one near the biome boundaries near the Grand Reef.
Next up is a visit to explore the Volcano Isle and the Precursor Base there. Then it's down to the Deep Grand Reef to check out the Abandonned Base, then the Lost River to finally explore it and beyond. I plan to make a base in the Tree Cove and likely no more. Obviously I won't be able to take the Cyclops everywhere, but I hope to carefully take it most of the way.
It's not really that much of a question to me, though; as I've said before, the battery chargers, water filtration systems and search lights consume power from the base for their respective tasks regardless of if you in and/or near it. Passive base energy consumption for oxygen and lights would likely be the same. The devs don't make those only trigger when you're around, so why would you assume they'd do any different for passive light-and-air power draw?
We've heard the devs want to introduce power consumption for light-and-air for base sections. AFAIK, we haven't heard why. I'm assuming they want massive bases to have a cost beyond the resources needed to build them. They look pretty, but the devs may be worried about gameplay impact outside of Creative Mode.
Well, as players have already said, how about giving us control over the bases then. Give us an off-switch and even better control over the bases.
You guys know the proverb: "Don't cross your bridges before you come to them."?
This fits perfectly here. The Devs said they will overhaul the complete power system.
That beeing said, makes any discussion what may or may not change/be possible after the change and so on, kinda obsolete or not?
The points of @The08MetroidMan and @zetachron are both valid considering there playstile in line with the current game version we have right now.
If you just wan't some food and scanning out of a mini/small base you can get it with one bioreactor. Will that be possible after the power overhaul? I don't know, let us wait and see. If you would ask me to guess, I would say yes I think that will still be possible afterwards. But that is just my guess, nothing more nothing less.
If you want a base capable of recharging a Cyclops or at least running 3 PCC's for said purpose, then you definetly need thermal power plant(s) when we talk about a base anywhere near the LR. Again based on the current game version. Will that be possible after the power overhaul? Again I can't say for sure, but my bet would be, yes it will still be possible.
Feel free to discuss this all day long if you wish, but I don't think that right now, you could get anything meaningful out of it.
Edit: I found some numbers that may belong to the upcoming power changes. It was on this Trello page. Basically it shows that they plan to increase power production & capacity of all power generating reactors including solar by factor 5. They also mention that for all fuels including reactor rods. But they also increase power consumption of spot- and floodlight by 5 aswell as the power consumption of the water filtration machine. On the trello card they link to a spreadsheat with current power values and there are also some "Power consumers" listed (Like Map room, corridor, MPR and so on) But I don't know if those values are current values or some early numbers for the upcoming balance changes. Because afaik right now those rooms do not consume power.
You guys know the proverb: "Don't cross your bridges before you come to them."?
This fits perfectly here. The Devs said they will overhaul the complete power system.
That beeing said, makes any discussion what may or may not change/be possible after the change and so on, kinda obsolete or not?
But that's the same argument you've used in the past without answering the key point; whether or not what the devs do with said overhaul actually improves anything as opposed to just changing it. In that regard, I don't think it's an obsolete argument to debate these merits. That being said, I at the very least agree with you on the belief that accurate judgements on what kind of playstyles will or won't be possible and/or necessary isn't possible at this point, but speculation and debate on that stuff is precisely what I think the devs need to see in order to try and gauge what kind of response certain changes are going to get.
That being said, I at the very least agree with you on the belief that accurate judgements on what kind of playstyles will or won't be possible and/or necessary isn't possible at this point, but speculation and debate on that stuff is precisely what I think the devs need to see in order to try and gauge what kind of response certain changes are going to get.
I agree with you, the devs do need to see our discussion on every subject to modify accordingly those things, giving overall a better experience.
@The08MetroidMan
A non recharging reactor like the bioreactor or nuclear plant shouldn't really run (or better said discharge their capacity) while the player is away. As you said, it depletes the reactor if you're away long enough and you come back with empty capacities and the reactors needing time to charge up again. In case of low energy consumption that would be an instant recovery, but you can't be sure with bigger bases. So why should a non recharging reactor discharge itself when the player is gone? No air and lights needed for the player. And batteries can wait or should be feeded by recharging reactors. Only alien life support like plants and alien containment might need a minimal energy support.
Suggestion to devs:
Non recharging reactors switch to emergency lifesupport mode while the player is outside the base
If there is no alien life in the base to support, then the non recharging reactors don't discharge while the player is outside
Recharging reactors always discharge first and are the only ones to keep up standart energy services if the player is away
This system needs no manual base power on/off switches the player could forget and the devs needed to implement. It simply works in the background and keeps the non recharging reactors from discharging until empty.
But will the devs do it, considering their past decisions? I wish they would.
Not to forget you can place an external growbed with creepvine clusters there that not only feed your bioreactor but also acts as a light tower in the dark.
It never occured to me to use the Exterior Grow Bed in this manner... That's gonna free up space inside the base and let me keep all of the rooms just one level high. Up until now I've been 'forced' to deal with a 2-story Alien Containment to grow Creepvines, so as to harvest Seeds for Lubricant or Rubber (Creepvines can grow in a 1-story AC but they won't go beyond 50% growth, which in turn means they won't produce seeds... really frustrating.) Now while I do love the ambient glow they give off, it always bugged me that one section in my base had the cool glow, while the other 2-5 rooms just sat there in the dark doing nothing.
Or I think you can even feed blood oil to the bioreactor?
I haven't tried in the last few updates, but as of the Jan update Blood Oil (despite it growing from a plant and the description stating Contains bloodvine seeds) can't be used for the Bioreactor at all...
@The08MetroidMan
You're right with me having a different playstyle. I avoid driving around with the Cyclops. Although it's now better, it's still no fun to drive, too slow, an energy sinkhole (which seems to change soon) and has no mobile scanner room.
I prefer the Seamoth and Prawn (funny, it's faster than the Cyclops) for expeditions. Meanwhile I got used hopping around with my Prawn in the Lava Zone, so use the Cyclops even less. I might reconsider if the Cyclops standart speed is like the flank speed now.
Obviously you don't use the scanner room massively, because it's the main reason for my minibases. I would have prefered a mobile scanning to give the Cyclops more purpose, but the devs don't like a scanner room inside the Cyclops.
I must admit I'm the same way. When I first started playing and got around to the Cyclops, I thought it was cool being all "Hunt for Red October" using the big submarine. But after playing around for some time (from Sep '16 to Jan '17) I slowly became disenchanted with the Cyclops. Even before they changed the Cyclops from being a mobile fortress, I never really enjoyed using it. It's such a large vehicle and maintaining the energy drain is a pain (why does it pull power randomly from various Power Cells, instead of draining each one individually?) I dislike how it 'pivots' when turning instead of 'strafing' like the Seamoth works, and navigating tight areas like the Deep Grand Reef are so frustrating. In the April update I used the Cyclops to explore the ILZ and ALZ, check out the Alien Power Plant and the unfinished Disease Research Facility (as of the then Stable update) - it was personally just an unenjoyable experience. I know they have more work to do in balancing, fine-tuning and such, and I'm not faulting them at all about it. But while I love playing Subnautica and can drive for hours in the Seamoth and Exosuit, but now when I'm forced to use the Cyclops to further the story I lose interest in playing the game at that point.
I must point out this has nothing to do with the sub taking damage now; I friggin' love that feature now, having to maintain its health and being more stealth in exploration. But as of my current save, the Cyclops is parked outside my base in the Grand Reef and I simply don't want to explore the DGR and further areas - as I know I'll have to spend literal hours trying to navigate the tight areas, fend off Lava Larva and Lava Lizards, and put up with the constant roaring of the Sea Emperor. It's like the nature of the game changes around that point, and having to rely on the Cyclops just doesn't appeal to me. To me personally, being it's the only vehicle that's both able to make the journey and enable long-term survival, it just isn't satisfying to use. I wish the Cyclops could be scaled down 20%, or somehow made more enjoyable to be driven - I don't really know what could be done to change or improve it, but I wish it could be done better.
Sorry for the complaints, but that's just my feelings on the matter. I still think the rest of the game is really great!
A non recharging reactor like the bioreactor or nuclear plant shouldn't really run (or better said discharge their capacity) while the player is away. As you said, it depletes the reactor if you're away long enough and you come back with empty capacities and the reactors needing time to charge up again. In case of low energy consumption that would be an instant recovery, but you can't be sure with bigger bases. So why should a non recharging reactor discharge itself when the player is gone? No air and lights needed for the player. And batteries can wait or should be feeded by recharging reactors. Only alien life support like plants and alien containment might need a minimal energy support.
Suggestion to devs:
Non recharging reactors switch to emergency lifesupport mode while the player is outside the base
If there is no alien life in the base to support, then the non recharging reactors don't discharge while the player is outside
Recharging reactors always discharge first and are the only ones to keep up standart energy services if the player is away
This system needs no manual base power on/off switches the player could forget and the devs needed to implement. It simply works in the background and keeps the non recharging reactors from discharging until empty.
But will the devs do it, considering their past decisions? I wish they would.
But that doesn't really make any sense to me; if something's drawing power to function, why would it automatically stop doing that when you're not around? Like I said before, the water-filtrators, spotlights and charging stations don't automatically stop consuming power for their tasks just because you're not there, so why would passive power for oxygen or lights? Look at modern-day living, for instance - just because you turn the lights out in a home, does that mean the generator responsible giving the home power automatically shuts down when you're not in?
Doing that just for the non-charging reactors sounds a bit complicated to code, especially since it would discourage use of one type of reactor over another - something the devs seemingly don't want to do.
I can't see that becoming a thing realistically in-game; it would kill the purpose of charging batteries or filtering water while you're away if the power was killed the moment you were gone.
Again, that would kind of cause one breed of reactor to be favored over the other as opposed to choosing one based on situation and playstyle.
Honestly, the only way I could see this balancing properly is if things were given manual on/off switches so as to allow prioritization of power use, either as individual switches for each item or as a single master-switch. It's my personal take on it, yes, but the other solutions just feel like they'd either imbalance to the point of favoring one source over the other rather than balancing the issues, or would require a lot of coding to make this "Smart On/Off" system work without it screwing up any other passively-powered units like lighting and water-filtration machines.
@The08MetroidMan
My first suggestion was a bit too quick and with errors. I could slap myself in the face for that.
It's all based on the fact that you energy needs could exceed actual base rate power supply. Which a player shouldn't do, but unfortunately happens, because every reactor has a capacity and a recharge rate, but you only see the capacity display. There is no display that shows the true energy recharge rate combined with the base energy consumption rate and the info on the reactors themselves doesn't show it either.
The emergency principle is to shut down non-emergency energy consume if you're outside and the regenerating power isn't enough. Only that the correct implementation would be to have a central energy consumption classification what is life support type and what not. Then the base would block all non-life-support consume while outside the base if the capacity is draining. So we would have theese 2 implementation jobs:
What's life support / emergency support and what not?
Is the base capacity depleting or stable?
Finally it's up to the user if he wants to have his batteries reloaded with the risk of dead fish and plants when he comes back. This would mean you better have a manual switch. Or an emergency handling which the user could activate. Then if you didn't plan energy correctly you could be sure to have your alien life protected but no charged batteries.
Of course the easiest solution would be to have a simple base energy display with capacity/input/output. Optionally warnings:
"Your base is unable to uphold energy demand ..."
"Warning. Your base isn't able to uphold life support ..." (If consume gets life support classification)
why does it pull power randomly from various Power Cells, instead of draining each one individually?
It doesn't. It drains from fore-port (facing forwards, front & left) power cell, drains to the back, switches to fore-starboard (front & right), and drains to the back **BUT** it only switches to the next power cell when the current one is drained, so if you swap out a couple of 0% cells while it's on #3, it will drain #3 and continue to #4. The only way to reset it is to sequentially take out and replace (might work with just a swap) each powercell until it's reset to #1 again. Does that make sense?
What i would love with these kind of ''small outpost'' bases is some kind of switch you can flip when you leave the outpost for awhile which will throw the base into a ''power-saver'' mode. In that mode you get very dimmed light and maybe air-support gets disabled. This mode would have the advantage of lowering the passive energy the base drains periodically to a bare minimum thus improving by alot the ability of the bioreactor/nuclear reactor to sustain a small outpost without really be demanding on them
When you re-enter the base you flip the switch back on and the base ''wakes up'', flickering the lights back on to normal and resumes the production of oxygen. I mean our computers can do that when we are away personally i think it could be a nice feature .... any thoughts?
It's all based on the fact that you energy needs could exceed actual base rate power supply. Which a player shouldn't do, but unfortunately happens, because every reactor has a capacity and a recharge rate, but you only see the capacity display. There is no display that shows the true energy recharge rate combined with the base energy consumption rate and the info on the reactors themselves doesn't show it either.
Honestly speaking, I think the question of whether or not you know the recharge rate is academic - it still wouldn't negate that the total well of power for a consumable power source like the bio or nuclear reactors would would run out from passive power drain at some point if you weren't there, much like how a fire dies out if you're not around to stoke the flames. Heck, I'm not even sure that's something that should be on a display as opposed to the database description, so as to judge the power capability before you build.
The emergency principle is to shut down non-emergency energy consume if you're outside and the regenerating power isn't enough. Only that the correct implementation would be to have a central energy consumption classification what is life support type and what not. Then the base would block all non-life-support consume while outside the base if the capacity is draining.
So we would have theese 2 implementation jobs:
What's life support / emergency support and what not?
Is the base capacity depleting or stable?
But that doesn't answer my point of how that would work - if it's "non-emergency energy consumption", that would logically be everything except passive oxygen and lights (or at least oxygen), since that's the bare minimum to have for emergency situations. It's not logical from an in-game perspective to keep shutting oxygen on and off like that every time you leave. It also doesn't address the meta-issues of coding something like that; constantly cutting passive power for lights and oxygen every single time you depart the base, which would trigger even just from going in and out to the gardens, seems like it'd be far messier to code than to just have a toggle on/off switch somewhere.
Why would any AI in a survival situation shut off life-support and only boot it up after someone enters, as opposed to having it always on standby in case of an emergency need to board, unless someone manually shut it off?
If everything else is still drawing power (battery chargers, water-filtrators, etc), why would air and oxygen be the priority to shut off when someone's not in the base - if you told a computer to shut off "non-vital systems", I'd think the appliances would be the first thing they'd default to turning off in an emergency situation to maintain energy.
Finally it's up to the user if he wants to have his batteries reloaded with the risk of dead fish and plants when he comes back. This would mean you better have a manual switch. Or an emergency handling which the user could activate. Then if you didn't plan energy correctly you could be sure to have your alien life protected but no charged batteries.
Of course the easiest solution would be to have a simple base energy display with capacity/input/output. Optionally warnings:
"Your base is unable to uphold energy demand ..."
"Warning. Your base isn't able to uphold life support ..." (If consume gets life support classification)
Personally, I just don't see an automatic system being implemented like that. If anything, the devs probably think it'll help encourage the player to not rely on any one method of fuel or to build their bases in areas where multiple fuel sources exist. Basically, that they believe planning energy correctly is the player's responsibility - not going to comment on if that's entirely fair or not, though; just that it's likely the direction they're headed.
Also, this is my personal opinion, but I don't know if having warnings about the energy demand's upkeep will do any good if you have no way to toggle the demands without either an on/off switch or outright deconstructing the parts in question.
@The08MetroidMan I don't think that I missed the point but I may have made myself not clear enough. I think that a dicussion is good and that suggestions for upcoming changes are good. That is exactly what the devs need imo for additional input and ideas before they implement/change something.
The thing where I see no meaning in, is to judge things that the devs have not even changed yet. Why discuss if they change just for the sake of changing instead of improving when there is barely something to judge? The few "facts" we have right now are the x5 value changes on a Trello card and a few numbers in a spreadsheet about power consumption that may or may not be the numbers they use for the change. That is at least for me nothing worthy of juding the complete power system overhaul yet. But I may just be a person who likes to see and test a change first before I judge it.
@zetachron I would really like to get more options and readouts about power production and consumption. Something like total power produced/drained and a timer how long your base could run on its current energy storage would be nice.
I also like the option to adjust our power usage more or even to prioritize which reactors to use first etc. I don't know if an automated system would work but we already have "smart homes" today that recognize if an owner is there or not and correspondingly shutting off lights and turning the heat down to save energy when you leave and turn it back on when you come back home. So from a pure technical point of view your mentioned system could work well.
A rather simple method could be to have a list of power draining "parts" in your base on which you could prioritize what should always have power "if possible" and what can be shut off IF power storage runs low. But all those values and options would need a kind of "energy-management"-console or something alike to put all the values on there. Yes this would take quite some coding and would need a new graphic asset for the console but I think it would greatly benefit the power system.
The devs could change the signal implementation handling a bit:
Bases get a signal
When displaying a base signal we get the distance, capacity and energy drain displayed
Switching off a signal turns its power into sleep mode / "low power" mode
This way we don't need a complicated switch implementation as the switch for turning off signals is already there. The devs only have to implement bases being signals together with delivering capacity and energy drain. And implement a "low powered" sleep mode:
sleeping beacons and scanner cams just stop sending data.
sleeping vehicles and bases switch to life support only (alien containment and plants)
sleeping vehicles and bases disengage creature attacks and lava larvas attracted to energy
This way also ensures the devs can implement creature attacks without the player fearing a base attack while he's away from his many bases. He simply puts an attacked base into sleep mode if he doesn't have the time to defend it.
@ThePassionateGamer
This will turn the beacon display control tab into a SciFi Smart Home manager. The view checkbox could switch power on/off or more like full power/sleep mode. Only full power shows us the signal and thus includes the old view checkbox function. It's even possible to get 3 energy settings (like the different color modes): full power, sleep mode, off
The devs could change the signal implementation handling a bit:
Bases get a signal
When displaying a base signal we get the distance, capacity and energy drain displayed
Switching off a signal turns its power into sleep mode / "low power" mode
This way we don't need a complicated switch implementation as the switch for turning off signals is already there. The devs only have to implement bases being signals together with delivering capacity and energy drain. And implement a "low powered" sleep mode:
sleeping beacons and scanner cams just stop sending data.
sleeping vehicles and bases switch to life support only (alien containment and plants)
sleeping vehicles and bases disengage creature attacks and lava larvas attracted to energy
This way also ensures the devs can implement creature attacks without the player fearing a base attack while he's away from his many bases. He simply puts an attacked base into sleep mode if he doesn't have the time to defend it.
@ThePassionateGamer
This will turn the beacon display control tab into a SciFi Smart Home manager. The view checkbox could switch power on/off or more like full power/sleep mode. Only full power shows us the signal and thus includes the old view checkbox function. It's even possible to get 3 energy settings (like the different color modes): full power, sleep mode, off
That could work, but I would not couple it with the beacons visibility. But a dedicated PDA page could very well handle all the energy management and display options you ever need without the need for a complete console in each base and the work that goes together with modeling something completely new. I like that idea and you could even put more info into that. Like vehicles docked maybe or hull integrity...
Oh and I would LOVE to set my Seamoth into a silent running mode or simply shut it off completely so that it does not pull aggro when I am not in it. I think now that we have Cyclops stealth we need that for all vehicles including the player to make aggro more believable. Like getting out of a silent running Cyclops pulls Seadragon aggro even so the player should be far less "noisy".
Comments
Maybe that's true in the past, but since base parts are going to all consume energy passively for lights and oxygen, even that seems like it'd make the bioreactor unfeasible as you'd have to constantly harvest something for it every time you visit - chances are you wouldn't even have energy for your vehicle, depending on the time differentials between your visits.
And as far as creatures attacking the thermal plants go, that'd be a con if nuclear and bioreactors weren't reblanced to make usable alternatives.
No, did so quite a few days ago. But I only run things I really need, so I use no exterior lights for these bases. You're right that they draw too much power. Oxygen support itself didn't consume power so far and if it would, it should only consume the power for the air you breathe and not use it if you are far away and no oxygen gets consumed. The plants itself might consume some power for internal lights and air support too, but what would be the formula and when would the devs implement that? Furthermore the scanner room right now draws no power and even in future might only do so while you are in station range.
So right now a bioreactor can support a passive station with a scanner room, moonpool and a few plants and even a fabricator. That shouldn't change in the future too much, as most of these parts have a zero to low usage when far away from the station.
And the bioreactor can be fed from base internal fast regrowing plants. Even if the devs change the growth rate, you could set up the right plants to still manage it. Right now I only need a single marblemelon pot to feed the bioreactor AND give me enough to eat and drink. So do this and you won't need to search for something to harvest.
From reading your post I think you never fed the bioreactor from food plants of a pot right beside the bioreactor. And further reading I think you might make the mistake of using external lights for smaller bases.
If creatures ever attack, a small base would be perfect with a bioreactor that can be refilled from the inside forever. A big base with nuclear reactors might run out of rods and you can't search for uranite while under attack. Also you won't loose much if creatures attack a minibase.
At minimum a base must have 3 powercell rechargers, 1 battery charger, 1 fabricator, 1 water purifier, 1 scanner room, and 2 small planters for marble melons. 1 Moonpool is optional, but almost always have one so I can park a sub.
Which actually brings to mind, if the devs want secondary bases to be more important: Critical structures that don't fit on the Cyclops. I think they are trying that with the water purifier, but marblemelons make that pointless.
But suppose, for example, that blood kelp could only be grown beneath a certain depth and benzene was something you needed in reasonable quantities for some reason? People would build a second base to farm blood kelp. Or suppose you needed a MPR-only device to "process" kyanite before it could be used, and make the raw kyanite take a lot of inventory space for the quantity you need. Much more likely people will build a base specifically for kyanite processing.
The main reason I typically only build one real base is because everything I might ever want to farm can be brought back to my base, and the shallow areas are the only reliable sources of titanium.
You kinda missed my point, there, which is that this method was feasible in the past but no longer is now because of the impending changes to power consumption we have now been made aware off (passive energy drain for lights and oxygen). Any example you use as of this point in time is irrelevant to that because it does not reflect the impact of the changes the Devs intend to implement in the next few months.
IDK if the devs would consider that being "realistic," though - not unless the option was installed to physically shut off the lights and oxygen for when you're departing it. As it stands though... "realistically", it would draw power regardless of if you're in it or not, just like battery chargers draw power to recharge batteries when you leave them be.
But again, any example from right now isn't going to reflect if it's feasible after these changes are made - in the past, when base parts not consuming power passively was the norm, it would have worked better; now though, until we actually see what the net requirements are for passive power use, we can't treat these options as optimal anymore. Heck, the battery charger seems more like a good idea of how this would function, since if it's got something to put power towards (charging batteries), it'll draw power for that regardless of if you're in the base or not. And if base parts are made to draw power passively, none of what you described (which uses power actively rather than passively) would serve as a counter to that, let alone a means to predict the impact on energy charge.
That doesn't do anything for keeping the base charged while you're gone and away, though. If you have a fuel source in the base, that only goes as far as having a power source - it doesn't go towards maintaining that power while you're gone. What good does it do if you come back to the base, find it on zero power and have to wait x-amount of time (1 energy per 12 seconds) for the Bioreactor to generate enough power to even charge the Seamoth with on top of passive energy consumption for oxygen and lights? If the base passively consumes the power-store while you're gone and you come back to find it dead, you'll have to harvest all your plants and stick them in the reactor and possibly go out hunting for more to expedite the procedure anyway.
Actually, I've used every compostable item, including hatched creatures from the containment unit - it's that it (A) charges power too slowly and (B) runs out if left alone if you rely on the plants or are gone for too long, what with the new plans for passive energy drain. Furthermore, I wasn't talking about external lights at any point - I was talking about how, in the future, the passive drain for lights and oxygen by base parts are likely going to mirror the effects of drain from items like external lights. My point is that the changes to power the devs are going to implement make this method unfesable for future use.
No - honestly speaking, I personally think a small base would be anything but perfect, between passive energy drain from the dev's planned future rebalancing depleating the energy reserve when you're gone and the bioreactor itself not being able to produce energy fast enough to recoup the loss or drain in high-intensity areas like the ILZ with the lava larva. And if you lose said minibase... well, with the game pretty much forcing you to build a base as a waypoint for the Lost River, you arguably could lose a lot depending on where the base you lose was placed. Plus, the Bioreactor arguably has the same issue as the nuclear reactor if you run out of materials mid-attack and can't replenish them in time. There really is no perfect answer for this anymore.
I think you're too focused and blinded by a future you fear. And even if everything would be as bad as you considered, let's make an example:
Possible future setting:
Bases draw power for internal light and air. The rate of drawing power for air and internal light exceeds what 1 bioreactor can deliver to uphold the station. That would be more than 1 energy unit each 12 seconds. Let's caclulate in X bioreactors to sustain air and internal lights of a station.
So you need X+1 bioreators to recharge a ministation. Right now X=0 and if the devs are reasonable in future, X wouldn't be greater than 1. If the devs do something crazy like X=2 or greater, than they just tease the players and kill their game, as you will need too much bioreactors as a minimum. But if the bioreactor requirements are cheap the player could still manage it. I even bet that the X will be less than 1, so that 1 bioreactor could be enough to not only keep a base active, but also recharge an empty bioreactor while keeping it active.
Then there is the issue of the base running out of the energy stack of the bioreactors while you are away and you return to a non powered base. But you error in that you have to wait until you harvested and the base taking awefully slow time to recharge. Because:
So the base might be dead when you're away. But you can awake it in no time and don't have to wait. Unless you make the next errors:
You should never forget that a minibase is just that: minimalistic. It doesn't offer you the luxury of power hungry passive needs that should be kept at your big bases. The only massive needed energy drainer would be the vehicle recharging. Unless the devs make scanning an energy hungry buisness (although the devs so far preferred small tiny scanning bases and thus would revert their policy). Which gets to the one valid weakness:
Small moonpool outpost won't work if the player is unable to turn a base into passive powerless mode once he leaves the base. Should be possbile for the devs to turn base power consumption to zero after leaving.
But for small purposes like feeding the player and scanning resources, even bases running out of energy would work. Dead bases for weak energy usage are back in zero time upon entering.
You know that you only need a single plant pot and marblemelon seeds that regrow in no time to feed marblemelons to your bioreactor without ever leaving the base?
Or 2 pots with each a lantern tree carrying dozens of fruits?
Or I think you can even feed blood oil to the bioreactor?
Not to forget you can place an external growbed with creepvine clusters there that not only feed your bioreactor but also acts as a lighttower in the dark.
And likewise, I think you're too focused on what's currently possible to really think about what will happen when the balance that makes these options possible shifts. I don't feel I'm "blinded" so much as just wary, given how much trouble the Silent Running update alone has faced in balancing out compared to it's first iteration.
But it feels like you're still missing the key point, which is that this energy drain will still be happening while you're not at the base. The only way to really keep up would be if it was the main base where you're constantly on hand to ensure the fuel doesn't run out. Also, need I remind you that the Sea Dragon issues you yourself have commented on don't exactly forestall the idea that the devs are going to do things that both tease the players and kill the game for them. Not to mention that you're kind of off-focus on the issue - it's not whether the bioreactor can be managed; it's that it seems to torpedo the idea of using it for an occasionally-visited outpost as opposed to your live-in base, because there's no longer the guarantee there will be an energy store for you to stop and quickly fill up - you'd have stop and build the power up yourself, making it another case of grinding to get anywhere.
None of what you've said here actually feels like I'm in error, though, since what you're suggesting implies more effort to force it to work than should be necessary - especially since power is really what you're going to need the most of when you're not on the surface:
But you're missing the whole point; it's precisely because power is what you're going to need most. In that event, it doesn't matter if "you can awake it in no time" because you very much do have to wait if you want to get enough power built up to charge your vehicles, especially the Cyclops now that the onboard charger net-gain is axed out. In fact, what you list as "mistakes" are honestly the whole reason why anyone would even build small bases in the first place - to quickly stop off so as to keep exploring on. Hell, it's pretty much implied we're going to be forced to build a waypoint in the Lost River just to get to the ILZ safely, so you can't list what's pretty much a necessary function of small bases as a "mistake."
But again, the whole point of even building a minibase should be to serve as a waystation from which to restore and refuel quickly and without issue. Being minimalistic doesn't change that - hell, serving a sole function like charging things is pretty minimalistic a function to devote a whole base to, as it's one single task. And again, with the whole "passive energy drain" feature that's to be implemented, there's no way to have a stockpile of energy established to make it feasible to leave be unless you're always maintaining it. If it ran on thermal energy it'd work, but bioreactors just cannot cut it in my opinion - especially if you have to become reliant on these waypoints to keep your energy up so you can get to places without running dry at some point.
But again, that's not something that's even confirmed to be possible; we don't know yet if the devs will make that an option, so we can't account for it yet.
And that's where your argument kind of misses the mark for me; "small purposes" like that can be achieved either by putting a planter in the Cyclops for the food/water issue, while the resource issue can be taken care of the old-fashioned way in most cases. The only thing you'd really need the outposts for as a necessity would be for energy, for which bases that run out of energy or are slow to build it up would not work. Turning them on isn't even the problem to begin with - maintaining that store and keeping it on without having to constantly provide for it is the issue, and especially if we're supposed to become reliant on such bases to maintain the energy to get all across the map. To that end, exhaustible reactors like the nuclear and bio just do not seem a feasible solution.
gotta stock up for those long trips, eliminates the need for looking for salt. that plus gotta use the up the spare space, plus thermal generators give more power than i know what to do with, can always add more of both. unless they balance power
It seems we are talking past each other. I mainly use minibases for non massive passive energy supplying purposes, like food, water, fabrication and scanning. Even future energy drain of bases for interior lights and air will allow me that as I explained that my case gives me instant base energy recovery without waiting. Zero waiting time.
Your outpost wants to have massive passive energy recharging services and that will never be gained by simple small bioreactors. You definitivly will need now and in future thermal plants to get what you need. You can and will never be satisfied with bioreactors or nuclear reactors for your purpose.
A completely different question is if devs will really implement passive energy base consumption for internal lights and air when you're far away. Because not only bioreactors would deplete, but also nuclear reactors and solar arrays would have to be very big to have enough capacity for the night discharging. So I assume the devs will only draw power for internal lights and air for a base if the player is inside the base.
No, you're not talking past me; I just disagree on needing the minibases for such a thing, since both are easily achievable without the effort of having to cart down resources to build one somewhere. Food, water and fabrication are (or were) all things that could be managed and done with the Cyclops just by having a Fabricator (and formally a Cell Charger until the power rebalances were put in), and some growbeads with Marblemelons, Potato Plants and Lantern Fruits; all your needs were met with said mobile base, making minibases only useful as power stop-offs - it honestly feels like a waste of effort to devote resources towards making a base for food and water when you can do that on the Cyclops easily.
Simply put, I just personally feel what you're using the bases for is... well, inefficient. I'm sorry in advance if that sounds rude, but it just doesn't strike me as worth it, which makes your case to defend it feel moot, because said cases are easily addressable without ever needing to build them in the first place. I'll be the first to admit it might be just a difference of playstyles, but I personally just feel that what you'd really need the minibases for now is power resupply, and that's something the bioreactor and nuclear reactor simply cannot manage.
But using said base for something as comparatively easy-to-solve as food and water (again, via onboard growbeds for the Cyclops) seems a waste of space and resources. Same for fabrication, since it'd be easier to have that on the Cyclops for on-the-spot needs and than just replenish the energy at a stop-off point. Again, maybe it's just a difference in play-style, but what you're advocating doesn't feel practical without a lot of extra work involved. And honestly speaking, even for what you were suggesting, the bioreactors wouldn't work in your case either - at one point you noted that plants may be retooled to die when there's no power, so even if you could kick the lights on quickly, you still wouldn't have any plants alive at that point to feed on and therefore it'd be a moot goal.
It's not really that much of a question to me, though; as I've said before, the battery chargers, water filtration systems and search lights consume power from the base for their respective tasks regardless of if you in and/or near it. Passive base energy consumption for oxygen and lights would likely be the same. The devs don't make those only trigger when you're around, so why would you assume they'd do any different for passive light-and-air power draw?
You're right with me having a different playstyle. I avoid driving around with the Cyclops. Although it's now better, it's still no fun to drive, too slow, an energy sinkhole (which seems to change soon) and has no mobile scanner room.
I prefer the Seamoth and Prawn (funny, it's faster than the Cyclops) for expeditions. Meanwhile I got used hopping around with my Prawn in the Lava Zone, so use the Cyclops even less. I might reconsider if the Cyclops standart speed is like the flank speed now.
Obviously you don't use the scanner room massively, because it's the main reason for my minibases. I would have prefered a mobile scanning to give the Cyclops more purpose, but the devs don't like a scanner room inside the Cyclops.
Next up is a visit to explore the Volcano Isle and the Precursor Base there. Then it's down to the Deep Grand Reef to check out the Abandonned Base, then the Lost River to finally explore it and beyond. I plan to make a base in the Tree Cove and likely no more. Obviously I won't be able to take the Cyclops everywhere, but I hope to carefully take it most of the way.
We've heard the devs want to introduce power consumption for light-and-air for base sections. AFAIK, we haven't heard why. I'm assuming they want massive bases to have a cost beyond the resources needed to build them. They look pretty, but the devs may be worried about gameplay impact outside of Creative Mode.
Well, as players have already said, how about giving us control over the bases then. Give us an off-switch and even better control over the bases.
This fits perfectly here. The Devs said they will overhaul the complete power system.
That beeing said, makes any discussion what may or may not change/be possible after the change and so on, kinda obsolete or not?
The points of @The08MetroidMan and @zetachron are both valid considering there playstile in line with the current game version we have right now.
If you just wan't some food and scanning out of a mini/small base you can get it with one bioreactor. Will that be possible after the power overhaul? I don't know, let us wait and see. If you would ask me to guess, I would say yes I think that will still be possible afterwards. But that is just my guess, nothing more nothing less.
If you want a base capable of recharging a Cyclops or at least running 3 PCC's for said purpose, then you definetly need thermal power plant(s) when we talk about a base anywhere near the LR. Again based on the current game version. Will that be possible after the power overhaul? Again I can't say for sure, but my bet would be, yes it will still be possible.
Feel free to discuss this all day long if you wish, but I don't think that right now, you could get anything meaningful out of it.
Edit: I found some numbers that may belong to the upcoming power changes. It was on this Trello page. Basically it shows that they plan to increase power production & capacity of all power generating reactors including solar by factor 5. They also mention that for all fuels including reactor rods. But they also increase power consumption of spot- and floodlight by 5 aswell as the power consumption of the water filtration machine. On the trello card they link to a spreadsheat with current power values and there are also some "Power consumers" listed (Like Map room, corridor, MPR and so on) But I don't know if those values are current values or some early numbers for the upcoming balance changes. Because afaik right now those rooms do not consume power.
But that's the same argument you've used in the past without answering the key point; whether or not what the devs do with said overhaul actually improves anything as opposed to just changing it. In that regard, I don't think it's an obsolete argument to debate these merits. That being said, I at the very least agree with you on the belief that accurate judgements on what kind of playstyles will or won't be possible and/or necessary isn't possible at this point, but speculation and debate on that stuff is precisely what I think the devs need to see in order to try and gauge what kind of response certain changes are going to get.
I agree with you, the devs do need to see our discussion on every subject to modify accordingly those things, giving overall a better experience.
A non recharging reactor like the bioreactor or nuclear plant shouldn't really run (or better said discharge their capacity) while the player is away. As you said, it depletes the reactor if you're away long enough and you come back with empty capacities and the reactors needing time to charge up again. In case of low energy consumption that would be an instant recovery, but you can't be sure with bigger bases. So why should a non recharging reactor discharge itself when the player is gone? No air and lights needed for the player. And batteries can wait or should be feeded by recharging reactors. Only alien life support like plants and alien containment might need a minimal energy support.
Suggestion to devs:
This system needs no manual base power on/off switches the player could forget and the devs needed to implement. It simply works in the background and keeps the non recharging reactors from discharging until empty.
But will the devs do it, considering their past decisions? I wish they would.
It never occured to me to use the Exterior Grow Bed in this manner...
I haven't tried in the last few updates, but as of the Jan update Blood Oil (despite it growing from a plant and the description stating Contains bloodvine seeds) can't be used for the Bioreactor at all...
I must admit I'm the same way. When I first started playing and got around to the Cyclops, I thought it was cool being all "Hunt for Red October" using the big submarine. But after playing around for some time (from Sep '16 to Jan '17) I slowly became disenchanted with the Cyclops. Even before they changed the Cyclops from being a mobile fortress, I never really enjoyed using it.
I must point out this has nothing to do with the sub taking damage now; I friggin' love that feature now, having to maintain its health and being more stealth in exploration. But as of my current save, the Cyclops is parked outside my base in the Grand Reef and I simply don't want to explore the DGR and further areas - as I know I'll have to spend literal hours trying to navigate the tight areas, fend off Lava Larva and Lava Lizards, and put up with the constant roaring of the Sea Emperor. It's like the nature of the game changes around that point, and having to rely on the Cyclops just doesn't appeal to me. To me personally, being it's the only vehicle that's both able to make the journey and enable long-term survival, it just isn't satisfying to use. I wish the Cyclops could be scaled down 20%, or somehow made more enjoyable to be driven - I don't really know what could be done to change or improve it, but I wish it could be done better.
Sorry for the complaints, but that's just my feelings on the matter. I still think the rest of the game is really great!
But that doesn't really make any sense to me; if something's drawing power to function, why would it automatically stop doing that when you're not around? Like I said before, the water-filtrators, spotlights and charging stations don't automatically stop consuming power for their tasks just because you're not there, so why would passive power for oxygen or lights? Look at modern-day living, for instance - just because you turn the lights out in a home, does that mean the generator responsible giving the home power automatically shuts down when you're not in?
Honestly, the only way I could see this balancing properly is if things were given manual on/off switches so as to allow prioritization of power use, either as individual switches for each item or as a single master-switch. It's my personal take on it, yes, but the other solutions just feel like they'd either imbalance to the point of favoring one source over the other rather than balancing the issues, or would require a lot of coding to make this "Smart On/Off" system work without it screwing up any other passively-powered units like lighting and water-filtration machines.
My first suggestion was a bit too quick and with errors. I could slap myself in the face for that.
It's all based on the fact that you energy needs could exceed actual base rate power supply. Which a player shouldn't do, but unfortunately happens, because every reactor has a capacity and a recharge rate, but you only see the capacity display. There is no display that shows the true energy recharge rate combined with the base energy consumption rate and the info on the reactors themselves doesn't show it either.
The emergency principle is to shut down non-emergency energy consume if you're outside and the regenerating power isn't enough. Only that the correct implementation would be to have a central energy consumption classification what is life support type and what not. Then the base would block all non-life-support consume while outside the base if the capacity is draining. So we would have theese 2 implementation jobs:
Finally it's up to the user if he wants to have his batteries reloaded with the risk of dead fish and plants when he comes back. This would mean you better have a manual switch. Or an emergency handling which the user could activate. Then if you didn't plan energy correctly you could be sure to have your alien life protected but no charged batteries.
Of course the easiest solution would be to have a simple base energy display with capacity/input/output. Optionally warnings:
It doesn't. It drains from fore-port (facing forwards, front & left) power cell, drains to the back, switches to fore-starboard (front & right), and drains to the back **BUT** it only switches to the next power cell when the current one is drained, so if you swap out a couple of 0% cells while it's on #3, it will drain #3 and continue to #4. The only way to reset it is to sequentially take out and replace (might work with just a swap) each powercell until it's reset to #1 again. Does that make sense?
When you re-enter the base you flip the switch back on and the base ''wakes up'', flickering the lights back on to normal and resumes the production of oxygen. I mean our computers can do that when we are away personally i think it could be a nice feature .... any thoughts?
Honestly speaking, I think the question of whether or not you know the recharge rate is academic - it still wouldn't negate that the total well of power for a consumable power source like the bio or nuclear reactors would would run out from passive power drain at some point if you weren't there, much like how a fire dies out if you're not around to stoke the flames. Heck, I'm not even sure that's something that should be on a display as opposed to the database description, so as to judge the power capability before you build.
But that doesn't answer my point of how that would work - if it's "non-emergency energy consumption", that would logically be everything except passive oxygen and lights (or at least oxygen), since that's the bare minimum to have for emergency situations. It's not logical from an in-game perspective to keep shutting oxygen on and off like that every time you leave. It also doesn't address the meta-issues of coding something like that; constantly cutting passive power for lights and oxygen every single time you depart the base, which would trigger even just from going in and out to the gardens, seems like it'd be far messier to code than to just have a toggle on/off switch somewhere.
Personally, I just don't see an automatic system being implemented like that. If anything, the devs probably think it'll help encourage the player to not rely on any one method of fuel or to build their bases in areas where multiple fuel sources exist. Basically, that they believe planning energy correctly is the player's responsibility - not going to comment on if that's entirely fair or not, though; just that it's likely the direction they're headed.
Also, this is my personal opinion, but I don't know if having warnings about the energy demand's upkeep will do any good if you have no way to toggle the demands without either an on/off switch or outright deconstructing the parts in question.
The thing where I see no meaning in, is to judge things that the devs have not even changed yet. Why discuss if they change just for the sake of changing instead of improving when there is barely something to judge? The few "facts" we have right now are the x5 value changes on a Trello card and a few numbers in a spreadsheet about power consumption that may or may not be the numbers they use for the change. That is at least for me nothing worthy of juding the complete power system overhaul yet. But I may just be a person who likes to see and test a change first before I judge it.
@zetachron I would really like to get more options and readouts about power production and consumption. Something like total power produced/drained and a timer how long your base could run on its current energy storage would be nice.
I also like the option to adjust our power usage more or even to prioritize which reactors to use first etc. I don't know if an automated system would work but we already have "smart homes" today that recognize if an owner is there or not and correspondingly shutting off lights and turning the heat down to save energy when you leave and turn it back on when you come back home. So from a pure technical point of view your mentioned system could work well.
A rather simple method could be to have a list of power draining "parts" in your base on which you could prioritize what should always have power "if possible" and what can be shut off IF power storage runs low. But all those values and options would need a kind of "energy-management"-console or something alike to put all the values on there. Yes this would take quite some coding and would need a new graphic asset for the console but I think it would greatly benefit the power system.
This way we don't need a complicated switch implementation as the switch for turning off signals is already there. The devs only have to implement bases being signals together with delivering capacity and energy drain. And implement a "low powered" sleep mode:
This way also ensures the devs can implement creature attacks without the player fearing a base attack while he's away from his many bases. He simply puts an attacked base into sleep mode if he doesn't have the time to defend it.
@ThePassionateGamer
This will turn the beacon display control tab into a SciFi Smart Home manager. The view checkbox could switch power on/off or more like full power/sleep mode. Only full power shows us the signal and thus includes the old view checkbox function. It's even possible to get 3 energy settings (like the different color modes): full power, sleep mode, off
That could work, but I would not couple it with the beacons visibility. But a dedicated PDA page could very well handle all the energy management and display options you ever need without the need for a complete console in each base and the work that goes together with modeling something completely new. I like that idea and you could even put more info into that. Like vehicles docked maybe or hull integrity...
Oh and I would LOVE to set my Seamoth into a silent running mode or simply shut it off completely so that it does not pull aggro when I am not in it. I think now that we have Cyclops stealth we need that for all vehicles including the player to make aggro more believable. Like getting out of a silent running Cyclops pulls Seadragon aggro even so the player should be far less "noisy".