Proposal: space habitat population and incorporation
Dragonmaster352
Elmer
Brend
Open in chat • 6 posts (analysis)
• Page 1 of 1
Proposal: space habitat population and incorporation
Dragonmaster352 » Tue Sep 08, 2015 5:20 pm
-
Dragonmaster352 - Storyteller
Catalytic Membrane Filter Generators
Advanced materials can act as catalysts for a variety of chemical reactions. By creating molecular filters in a cathode-anode structure from these materials, energy can be generated by letting a gas pass through the filter sets. The gas must contain a gas molecule that can be separated into different elements, for example carbon dioxide. By letting the cathode filter separate the molecule as a reaction catalyst and bond to one of the elements, e.g. carbon, the other element can continue as a negatively charged ion, e.g. oxygen, to the anode filter. There the ion spends electrons to return it to its neutral state. This process generates electricity by letting the electrons flow from the anode filter to the cathode filter. The process can also occur in reverse with positively charged ions and letting one element bond to the anode in stead of the cathode. This all depends on the gas. In either case the filter that gets an element bonded to it needs to be periodically cleaned, after which it can be reused.Unlocks the Industrial Atmospheric Processing upgrade on space habitats
cost: 2000
and 4 
Industrial Atmospheric Processing
The space habitat now generates 10 
and can support up to 1.0 
.If population is present the space habitat can be specialized by a corporation. Instead of 2 times the production the specialised space habitat will have only 1.5 times the production. A specialised space habitat will produce 5
for the corporation owner regardless of its location. Note: the 5 is for the corporation owner, NOT the space habitat owner.cost: 1500
, 200 
Costs where chosen at random so they will probably need to change. Before people start shouting it should be way more expensive, keep in mind that on a single space habitat specializing it would make it nearly useless. And only raw material corporations can be used.
Thoughts?
Elmer » Wed Sep 09, 2015 9:49 am
I like how this tech unlocks corporation options for the space habitat. Are there specific reasons why you changed the default numbers (1.5 production, 5 )
I believe the population will also bring the racial bonuses with them, but the 100 population growth costs can be implemented in the tech (for as far that is not already done.)
)I believe the population will also bring the racial bonuses with them, but the 100
population growth costs can be implemented in the tech (for as far that is not already done.)
Brend » Sat Sep 12, 2015 4:33 pm
Ignoring costs, as requested ^_^
I think that "Population on a Space Habitat" and "Specialisation of a Space Habitat" are different things, and should have different techs and projects (thought having them in the same technology tree sounds logical). Both are very interesting avenues of discovery, but they are not necessarily related. One is about making the Space Habitate more inhabitant-friendly, the other is about specialisting the harvesting/mining process.
I strongly suggest splitting up these two effects and providing separate technologies and projects for them. We could, for example, look into the Re(design|placement) of NCC and Prefab, where I feel the Population part of this idea would fit in nicely. I could also see arguments in favour of having the Population technology be one of the prerequisites of the Specialisation technology.
A technology combining the two feels to me like a technology that tries to do too much; especially because there is no precedent for a link between specialisation and requiring population. As I think these are two separate concerns, I have split my comments and questions in two pieces as well.
There's some design choices that I do not understand in the specialisation part of the project. So, I would like to ask for some explanation first before commenting on that part:
It is unclear to me wow you envision population on a Space Habitat working from a rules perspective. What is the impact of on the habitat with regards to production? How should Population growth and Population Growth Cost (only relevant if there is an economic benefit) be handled?
I think that "Population on a Space Habitat" and "Specialisation of a Space Habitat" are different things, and should have different techs and projects (thought having them in the same technology tree sounds logical). Both are very interesting avenues of discovery, but they are not necessarily related. One is about making the Space Habitate more inhabitant-friendly, the other is about specialisting the harvesting/mining process.
I strongly suggest splitting up these two effects and providing separate technologies and projects for them. We could, for example, look into the Re(design|placement) of NCC and Prefab, where I feel the Population part of this idea would fit in nicely. I could also see arguments in favour of having the Population technology be one of the prerequisites of the Specialisation technology.
A technology combining the two feels to me like a technology that tries to do too much; especially because there is no precedent for a link between specialisation and requiring population. As I think these are two separate concerns, I have split my comments and questions in two pieces as well.
Specialising Space Habitats
There's some design choices that I do not understand in the specialisation part of the project. So, I would like to ask for some explanation first before commenting on that part:
- Normally, specialised zones give either 10 or 1, depending in whether the corporate HQ is in the same system. What is the reasoning behind giving 5 ?
- What is treason behind giving only 1.5 times the production, and not the normal 2 times?
Population on Space Habitat
It is unclear to me wow you envision population on a Space Habitat working from a rules perspective. What is the impact of
on the habitat with regards to production? How should Population growth and Population Growth Cost (only relevant if there is an economic benefit) be handled?
Dragonmaster352 » Sat Sep 12, 2015 5:45 pm
-
Dragonmaster352 - Storyteller
The reason connects one with the other.
I didn't want the tech to become to good, resulting in it being very expensive. The idea was to dial it down without making it unattractive.
As for my reasoning to connect population to specialization it is as follows.
Because of the interstellar nature of corporations they require a type 1 atmosphere. Large populations also put a significant strain on an atmosphere. On a planet your not in an open system. Energy and matter is constantly being added and removed. A space habitat on the other hand is more a closed loop system and thus cannot handle such strains. So I made a tech that makes the space habitat capable of handling that strain and because of the atmospheric requirements of a corporation I thought it wouldn't be a stretch to add it to the technology as an economic benefit for the population. Without having to think of difficult ways for a population to provide an economic bonus on something that isn't a zone.
I didn't want the tech to become to good, resulting in it being very expensive. The idea was to dial it down without making it unattractive.
As for my reasoning to connect population to specialization it is as follows.
Because of the interstellar nature of corporations they require a type 1 atmosphere. Large populations also put a significant strain on an atmosphere. On a planet your not in an open system. Energy and matter is constantly being added and removed. A space habitat on the other hand is more a closed loop system and thus cannot handle such strains. So I made a tech that makes the space habitat capable of handling that strain and because of the atmospheric requirements of a corporation I thought it wouldn't be a stretch to add it to the technology as an economic benefit for the population. Without having to think of difficult ways for a population to provide an economic bonus on something that isn't a zone.
Brend » Sat Sep 12, 2015 6:50 pm
Ok, I don't necessarily agree with it, but I do understand the relation you seek between the two effects.
I'll hold of on commenting until you have had time to answer the rest of the questions ^_^
I'll hold of on commenting until you have had time to answer the rest of the questions ^_^
Dragonmaster352 » Sun Sep 20, 2015 3:35 pm
-
Dragonmaster352 - Storyteller
I chose 1.5 times instead of 2 times because thought that would make the space habitat to powerful, this is not intended as an end game tech. Seeing as the normal 2 times bonus a specialization would grant would basically give a maintenance free second space habitat. That is powerful. In my opinion to powerful. On the other hand I didn't want to pay the same as a full space habitat to do this. So I choose 1.5 times instead of 2 times as a half way mark.
The 5 is there because a space habitat will always be outside a system so normally it would always default to 1 . However I also wanted to discourage making a space habitat a corporate HQ, which could open several cans of worms, without prohibiting it. So 5 was, again, a nice half way mark.
Was this a better explanation?
The 5
is there because a space habitat will always be outside a system so normally it would always default to 1 . However I also wanted to discourage making a space habitat a corporate HQ, which could open several cans of worms, without prohibiting it. So 5 was, again, a nice half way mark.Was this a better explanation?
6 posts (analysis)
• Page 1 of 1