Factorio Forums

I think most players are annoyed by the fact that solar power just needs so much room.
Additionally build blueprint after blueprint of solar plants is boring - even deciding if you build solar plants on top of ores is a no-brainer.
Another point is, that there is no technology where i have to decide: build more or develop technology (maybe developing modules but you have to build them too) to increase effect of already build entities.

i would like to have ~5 technologies that increase solar power effectiveness (10% effectiveness each). Maybe this could scale with the count of current build solar plants (to match the cost of solar plants i should have build to get the same percental effect).

Moved from Suggestions to Balancing. See also the other discussion(s) around solar.

The basic problem with your suggestion is that the space demand actually is one of the few costs associated with solar. The panels are expensive, yes, but they provide endless power with no maintenance, upkeep cost or manual intervention. They also don't cause any pollution or aggro, so instead the space demand is what drives you to attack the biters.

The real problem (which your upgrade idea also alludes to) is the lacking sense of progression. Solar is simple, reliable and spammable and does not create any interesting gameplay challenges. Steam meanwhile is non-renewable, not much more complex once you've built your first line, and also happens to be your very first starter tech. Ideally the game should have many more power options, both some pure upgrades (endgame fusion reactor to replace solar, thermonuclear to replace coal-fired steam boilers etc.) and sidegrades/alternatives (wind: less reliable than solar but cheaper to build and works during the night, geothermal: powerful, but expensive and tied to "vent" nodes, massive steam turbine that vastly outclasses current Steam Engines but must run constantly...)

i agree with photoloss. we need more power options. love the idea of wind, geothermal, thermonuclear and late game fusion!

Wind seems to be ok, since it can be pretty unreliable. Solars need predictable number of accumulators, while wind could be much more unpredictable. Wind should surely require some automated backup steam or crazy amount of accumulators. But solars are relatively early stuff too. Maybe solars should require some later game stuff to work (plastics?)

Geothermal could be also ok. The suitable places can be quite rare and will force the player to expand. And the geothermal places can drain similarly to oil deposits. But it doesn't sound worth the trouble. I wonder how to make it into interresting gameplay.

Thermonuclear and fusion look much more problematic. What downsides can you give them except obscene research and build costs?

JSH wrote:Wind seems to be ok, since it can be pretty unreliable. Solars need predictable number of accumulators, while wind could be much more unpredictable. Wind should surely require some automated backup steam or crazy amount of accumulators. But solars are relatively early stuff too. Maybe solars should require some later game stuff to work (plastics?)

Geothermal could be also ok. The suitable places can be quite rare and will force the player to expand. And the geothermal places can drain similarly to oil deposits. But it doesn't sound worth the trouble. I wonder how to make it into interresting gameplay.

Thermonuclear and fusion look much more problematic. What downsides can you give them except obscene research and build costs?

The only practical method for converting nuclear energy into usable electricity that we current know of in real life (and use) is steam turbines. We use the thermal energy of the reactor to heat water to boil and use the force of it's expansion to drive turbines which force electric engines to turn, generating electrical power. So the downside would be the need to create turbine infrastructure and get some water into the system (real world systems recycle the water, but perhaps the one's in this game would simply feed Steam engines, hence the Fusion reactor would end up replacing boilers for late game and has the advantage of being compact and not needing fuel, since for a fusion reactor, it could just use some of the energy it produces to do electrolysis on water to split the hydrogen from the oxygen, and use the hydrogen to fuel the reaction; this is energy positive because the nuclear potential energy of the hydrogen is far greater than the energy required to separate it chemically from the oxygen in water molecules).

Frightning wrote:The only practical method for converting nuclear energy into usable electricity that we current know of in real life (and use) is steam turbines. We use the thermal energy of the reactor to heat water to boil and use the force of it's expansion to drive turbines which force electric engines to turn, generating electrical power. So the downside would be the need to create turbine infrastructure and get some water into the system (real world systems recycle the water, but perhaps the one's in this game would simply feed Steam engines, hence the Fusion reactor would end up replacing boilers for late game and has the advantage of being compact and not needing fuel, since for a fusion reactor, it could just use some of the energy it produces to do electrolysis on water to split the hydrogen from the oxygen, and use the hydrogen to fuel the reaction; this is energy positive because the nuclear potential energy of the hydrogen is far greater than the energy required to separate it chemically from the oxygen in water molecules).

I know the real life principles. So the downside would be "expensive + needs water"?

JSH wrote: I know the real life principles. So the downside would be "expensive + needs water"?

I wouldn't mind fission/fusion being direct upgrades to burner/solar respectively, but you could also add some mechanics to make it more engaging.

Without postulating entirely new game mechanics the fission reactor could simply overheat if it is unable to output its hot water, let it overheat too much and half your base is gone
Power output and explosion risk could be customised through a machine inventory of fuel+control rods, allowing logic circuits to compensate for larger power fluctuations.

Fusion I envision as the "endgame" energy source, once established basically a "cheaty compact solar". The challenge is getting there: the reactor itself is expensive, fusion fuel requires decent amounts of power to produce (water electrolysis in chemical plants?), starting it up requires a MASSIVE amount of power to ignite the plasma, no easy "off" switch to save power and if you run out of fuel for whatever reason (power shortage in the fuel production...) you have to pay the ignition cost again. Maybe also add an overheat mechanic similar to fission, only not quite as destructive so you only lose the reactor itself.

Same treatment for Steam Engines since both reactors output hot water: add an advanced turbine generator with a higher cost, warmup/"spin-up" time but massively higher efficiency. This makes base load power much more compact, but challenges the player to properly plan for demand fluctuations. Ideally these additions would be balanced such that a boiler+fission mix is the fastest way to expand your power production (assuming no explosions ofc ) and solar should be slightly cheaper resource-wise than fusion if you assign zero cost to space control.
But really, I wouldn't mind steam and solar becoming almost entirely obsolete by lategame. Power gen currently offers no sense of progression beyond "are you going to play more than a few hours? Congrats, you now have infinite energy! Wait, you want to finish up quickly? Well, just stick to starter power then and ignore the only tech there is."