EternaVerse
The Forum

Energy Technology VS Energy Production

When ever there needs to be a vote on anything this is the place to do it.

Have Energy Technology affect ALL energy produced?

Yes
36
95%
No
2
5%
 
Total votes : 38

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby InuYasha » Tue Nov 16, 2010 7:04 am

i know i may be in the wrong topic but what if we could build more energy buildings like
nuclear power plants
hydro power plants
Image
User avatar
InuYasha
 
Posts: 83
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2010 10:16 pm
Location: Romania

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby KnightofNi » Tue Nov 16, 2010 8:43 am

InuYasha wrote:i know i may be in the wrong topic but what if we could build more energy buildings like
nuclear power plants
hydro power plants


Fusion reactor = nuclear power plant
Hydro power plant = 20th century technology (this is like the 30th century or something)
KnightofNi
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:50 pm

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby Eterna » Fri Nov 19, 2010 11:37 pm

making MORE energy buildings is sorta pointless, and making the game more like EnergyVerse... Level 10 Graviton? No Problem!

the votes are pretty clear - 3 more votes and it's implemented
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby Imperiex » Sun Nov 28, 2010 2:39 pm

KnightofNi wrote:
InuYasha wrote:i know i may be in the wrong topic but what if we could build more energy buildings like
nuclear power plants
hydro power plants


Fusion reactor = nuclear power plant
Hydro power plant = 20th century technology (this is like the 30th century or something)


Actually Nuclear Power Plant = Fission Reactor, but no one would build a fission reactor if they could build a fusion reactor because Fusion is cleaner and safer. I would say that energy technology should affect all forms of energy production because Fusion is just one of many possible branches of energy technology. Maybe you're putting alot of money into developing advanced solar cells that not only absorb visible light and turn it into energy, but also use infra-red, ultra-violet, x-rays, microwaves, and all the other forms of radiation emitted by a star to create electricity.
I guess what I would say is that energy should increase the output of all energy producers, but zero levels of energy tech should be required to build a fusion reactor. Any society with sufficient technology to build Deuterium Synthesizers can build a fusion reactor. As a side note though. I'm not even sure that Deuterium is combustible so what exactly are ships with combustion engines using the deuterium for?
Imperiex
 
Posts: 96
Joined: Tue Oct 26, 2010 9:30 pm

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby Eterna » Sun Nov 28, 2010 3:12 pm

Deuterium is "heavy hydrogen" - read : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deuterium

"Deuterium burning" is a nuclear fusion reaction that occurs in stars and some substellar objects, in which a deuterium nucleus and a proton combine to form a helium-3 nucleus. It occurs as the second stage of the proton–proton chain reaction, in which a deuterium nucleus formed from two protons fuses with a further proton, but can also proceed from primordial deuterium.

we're just being lazy and considering "combustion" engines as requiring deuterium for fuel much the same way as we would burn hydrogen.

However, there has been talk of adding more resources.. not sure what people would think of having to provide three separate fuels..
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby AvatarAcid » Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:10 pm

I see nothing wrong with that at all...

Oxygen or Gas(take your pick there are many useful!) could be added for fuels. Although, even Star Trek universe ships use deut for impulse propulsion.
AvatarAcid
 
Posts: 483
Joined: Wed Sep 29, 2010 10:44 pm

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby Taaxi » Sun Nov 28, 2010 5:33 pm

Eterna wrote:However, there has been talk of adding more resources.. not sure what people would think of having to provide three separate fuels..


PLEASE DON'T
User avatar
Taaxi
 
Posts: 653
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2010 3:34 pm

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby KnightofNi » Mon Nov 29, 2010 1:52 am

Taaxi wrote:
Eterna wrote:However, there has been talk of adding more resources.. not sure what people would think of having to provide three separate fuels..


PLEASE DON'T


+1
KnightofNi
 
Posts: 422
Joined: Sun Oct 10, 2010 1:50 pm

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby sandmaester » Mon Nov 29, 2010 9:11 am

i did not have the time to read all the post and i'm sorry if some1 has said it before
energy tech in my opinion should not only maximize the energy production (Fusion/solar sats/plant) BUT it should also minimize the energy needed for the other factories to be working

somethink like this
energy tech lvl 1 --> +0.8% ~= 1% energy to solar(plants+sats) and to fusions
--> -0.25% energy consumption to all mines

but it should have a limit... something like lvl 15-20 so it would not be "abused" by top players...
We will live they will die

Nasus :P
User avatar
sandmaester
 
Posts: 24
Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2010 10:44 am
Location: out there.... everywhere...

Re: Energy Technology VS Energy Production

Postby Eterna » Wed Dec 01, 2010 6:23 pm

Sorry sandmaester - that is not what the vote is about - and I'm going to have to say a loud "NO" to that because of one thing... it's way too damn easy to exploit - energy is easy enough to come by.

As to the results of the vote...


COMMUNITY APPROVED - You'll see this in the game by Sunday!
Image
User avatar
Eterna
Site Admin
 
Posts: 2433
Joined: Tue Sep 14, 2010 11:57 pm
Location: eOs

Previous

Return to Voting Booth

  • Who is online

    Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron