The most important change that NEEDS to happen!

[Drachasor]

Well, the existence of matter could lend credence to already existing antimatter. Where is it in the universe and how we could move it? idk. We are talking about a game inspired by existing science fiction. They all seem to use anti mater as a reactor, like we today use fission and soon fusion.

Now if you want to say that using it that way breaks your immersion, because it violates the 1st law of thermodynamics and it's not hard science fiction. I can see that, but then I'd point to FTL. And how that violates the law of relativity.

If FTL is believable, net positive energy is to.

Edit:
Which then Makes me change my stance on Dyson Spheres. I want 150% Effective Dyson Spheres PDX!!!!! lol

Tbh, I don't really mind if they have a cheat, but in our universe, there's no great store of anti-matter anywhere we can see. We'd see it annihilating with matter. They really don't like each other and it's a lot of energy. Our cosmological models for a long time have assumed, based on the evidence, that matter and anti-matter were equal but physical laws are slightly asymmetric and all of the anti-matter was destroyed. This was back when the whole universe was very hot and dense, so there was nowhere to run or hide. Small amounts of anti-matter (like positrons and anti-protons) get made now and then from cosmic rays or other collisions, but it's all quickly destroyed because it inevitable comes in contact with matter. So I'd prefer them having some cheat for making it than "mining" it in any way. I guess violations of conservation of energy in science ficiton don't bother me as much -- as weird as that is to say aloud.*

But that's why my real point is if they can do that, they wouldn't make ring worlds. Wouldn't be efficient and not as safe and secure as a habitate on the scale of a planet or a bit bigger. Though given how few people can fit on ring-worlds, habitats like that make more sense. I suppose if there was a Stellaris 2, I'd want systems to get colonized, and you can build things like large habitations in systems and people live wherever they can. Habitat spam is probably realistic, but it wouldn't be a big deal if colonizing was abstracted to a system level where you build improvements for the system itself.

Anyhow, back to Dyson Spheres. I'd just like if they were a bit more realistic. Cost varies based on the star (bigger stars are more expensive), and energy output also varies (blue stars generate a lot more energy than our sun, for instance). Or just turn it into increasing levels of dyson swarms, where bigger stars can have higher levels. You'd have to adjust swarms to provide energy based on the star and not this weird energy deposit thing on stars. You know....energy is really weird in this game.

*Yes, I read everything I write as I write it.**

**This is a lie

 

[Barron of Gondor]

Tbh, I don't really mind if they have a cheat, but in our universe, there's no great store of anti-matter anywhere we can see. We'd see it annihilating with matter. They really don't like each other and it's a lot of energy. Our cosmological models for a long time have assumed, based on the evidence, that matter and anti-matter were equal but physical laws are slightly asymmetric and all of the anti-matter was destroyed. This was back when the whole universe was very hot and dense, so there was nowhere to run or hide. Small amounts of anti-matter (like positrons and anti-protons) get made now and then from cosmic rays or other collisions, but it's all quickly destroyed because it inevitable comes in contact with matter. So I'd prefer them having some cheat for making it than "mining" it in any way. I guess violations of conservation of energy in science ficiton don't bother me as much -- as weird as that is to say aloud.*

But that's why my real point is if they can do that, they wouldn't make ring worlds. Wouldn't be efficient and not as safe and secure as a habitate on the scale of a planet or a bit bigger. Though given how few people can fit on ring-worlds, habitats like that make more sense. I suppose if there was a Stellaris 2, I'd want systems to get colonized, and you can build things like large habitations in systems and people live wherever they can. Habitat spam is probably realistic, but it wouldn't be a big deal if colonizing was abstracted to a system level where you build improvements for the system itself.

Anyhow, back to Dyson Spheres. I'd just like if they were a bit more realistic. Cost varies based on the star (bigger stars are more expensive), and energy output also varies (blue stars generate a lot more energy than our sun, for instance). Or just turn it into increasing levels of dyson swarms, where bigger stars can have higher levels. You'd have to adjust swarms to provide energy based on the star and not this weird energy deposit thing on stars. You know....energy is really weird in this game.

*Yes, I read everything I write as I write it.**

**This is a lie

You have to turn your brain off for Dyson Spheres regardless of the mass of the star it surrounds, the mass of the sphere itself would cause the whole thing to implode towards the center of gravity.

But, no, What I meant when I hinted about the large pool of anti matter somewhere in the (muli)universe: The existence of all Matter in the universe is proof that there is untouched Antimatter somewhere... That or you delve into religion... Perhaps the Shroud is real!!!!!

As per a Stellaris 2. I'd like them to get rid off the idea of Habitats. And just move Pops to Star Stations. All a habitat is is just a Space Station with extra steps. Those two could be merged into one mechanic.

This post is about Uranus and Ice Giants BTW. How'd it get to Theoretical Physics? LOL

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

It completely surrounds the star. All the energy is captured in that sense.

If Dyson spheres in Stellaris are so good at capturing the light from stars,
why are planets still illuminated on the side facing their sun, and not in a state of eternal night?

 

[Barron of Gondor]

If Dyson spheres in Stellaris are so good at capturing the light from stars,
why are planets still illuminated on the side facing their sun, and not in a state of eternal night?

You gotta turn you brain off with those things

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

You gotta turn you brain off with those things

I was trying to subtly guide people to my suggestion thread about making Dyson Sphere systems turn very dark, similar to the Stellarite system.

 

[Drachasor]

If Dyson spheres in Stellaris are so good at capturing the light from stars,
why are planets still illuminated on the side facing their sun, and not in a state of eternal night?

That's all LEDs because it looks cool.

 

[Jamaican Castle]

In any case, I stand by the idea that if a civ can generate money as easily and freely as a star, but in more conviently sized locations, then they'd never make a ring world. They'd make smaller, more manageable habitats. Likely those would rotate for gravity still and could have terrestial-like environments just cuved the opposite way. Like bishop rings or o'neil cylinders. Though since artificial gravity exists in the game, if that was easy enough, they wouldn't need to fake it with such objects. If you don't want to waste the energy of a star, make a dyson array.

Neither a Dyson sphere nor a ringworld really makes any sense except as the "victory lap" (pun slightly intended) of an inconceivably mighty civilization who want to leave uncontrovertible proof in the heavens themselves that they really are inconceivably mighty. If I was ever designing a space 4X, I'd make building a megaproject like this the economic/scientific victory, on the grounds that if you pulled that off there's really nothing left to challenge you any more.

While I do appreciate that Stellaris is willing to play fast and loose with the numbers for the sake of gameplay, ultimately I do think these two are bad fits for the scale of the rest of the game (such as it is).

So I'd prefer them having some cheat for making it than "mining" it in any way. I guess violations of conservation of energy in science ficiton don't bother me as much -- as weird as that is to say aloud.*

It makes sense to me, in that it's easier to reconcile with a world that's "just like ours" except with advanced technology. There might be some boundary conditions under which conservation of energy as we know it doesn't hold true, we just don't have enough experience with them yet to know about it. In much the same way that there are conditions under which Newtonian mechanics don't hold true, but we didn't know that until we started looking very closely at Mercury. But if there were really huge stashes of natural antimatter out there somewhere, and they didn't have some kind of magically perfect containment, they'd blown up from time to time and we'd definitely have seen evidence of that. So in that sense, one phenomenon is more "believable" than the other.

(Personally, I don't mind if you want to posit some kind of parallel antimatter universe or something and "mine" it from there; that doesn't bother my scientific sensibility. Tastes may vary on that point.)

You know....energy is really weird in this game.

Don't even get me started on how you apparently can put the output of a Dyson sphere in boxes and ship it across the galaxy with no losses. (Yes, you have to pay shipping & handling now, but you don't actually lose any of the material being transported.)

 

[HFY]

Don't even get me started on how you apparently can put the output of a Dyson sphere in boxes and ship it across the galaxy with no losses.

Energons are delicious.

 

[Gilbert95]

Niven said the ring world required gathering all other material (planets, asteroids, etc.) in the system to make. But unless it is paper thin or unusably narrow, the math doesn't work out. Therefore making a ring world should require sacrificing all celestial bodies (yes including colonized worlds) in your empire to make (and of course a minimum number of systems controlled, like 100). With that it could be appropriately powerful, with thousands of districts and carrying capacity in the millions.

 

[Tannhäuser Cake]

Niven said the ring world required gathering all other material (planets, asteroids, etc.) in the system to make. But unless it is paper thin or unusably narrow, the math doesn't work out. Therefore making a ring world should require sacrificing all celestial bodies (yes including colonized worlds) in your empire to make (and of course a minimum number of systems controlled, like 100). With that it could be appropriately powerful, with thousands of districts and carrying capacity in the millions.

What if we actually could sacrifice planets in our empire to expand a ringworld?

 

[Jamaican Castle]

What if we actually could sacrifice planets in our empire to expand a ringworld?

Planets in your empire? What for? This sounds like a great idea for the next Crisis path.

 

[Thiend]

Niven said the ring world required gathering all other material (planets, asteroids, etc.) in the system to make. But unless it is paper thin or unusably narrow, the math doesn't work out. Therefore making a ring world should require sacrificing all celestial bodies (yes including colonized worlds) in your empire to make (and of course a minimum number of systems controlled, like 100). With that it could be appropriately powerful, with thousands of districts and carrying capacity in the millions.

I'd play it.

This could also entail Shattered Ring being outright missing a quarter of the ring, rather than it just being damaged, with special mechanics to repair and then expand it by harvesting ridiculous amounts of material from other systems.

Basically, they could rework Shattered Ring to be the ultimate tall build, with functionally infinite space within that single system through a progression system. That's far more interesting than the current or past versions. Regular empires could retain current ringworlds, or an AP could be added granting that functionality (which Shattered Ring would not require, and would have earlier access to).