Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Dissapointed in survival.

Discussion in 'Survival' started by PlaZmaButter, Mar 14, 2014.

Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.
  1. dpurgert Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105
    IDK about DayZ or the others ... but EVE-O definitely has a lot to bring people together (see: nullsec alliances). Your complaint kinda reads like the people who wanted to play with zero interaction with other people (not gonna get into a "PvP" or "PvE" fight here, but suffice to say there's practically zero in EVE that doesn't involve some PVP -- a lot of it's just hidden behind other interfaces, or the godawful daily rock respawn).

    Survival mode will be fine when there's an "us vs. them" thing going on ... but that's also going to be a pain to work with. If "we" built something great, and had a cohesive group, why would "they" want to come play on our server (where they're starting from scratch ... or vice-versa)
     
  2. Ericius11 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    463
    I have to agree with this. I busted my rear end to build a solid base of operations. I even took it to a step farther by doing the crashed red ship scenario where you start without an assembler or refinery. After building my base, I saved the game, and allowed myself to die out of curiosity. Man was I sore when I respawned in a beautiful new ship carrying all the gear I had worked so hard to produce.
     
  3. Ash87 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,977
    Something the: "No food, this game is about building" crowd is ignoring, is that, as is, there are no goals to strive towards in game.

    I'm sorry, but I've played about 30-40 hours since this game went to survival, and I can tell you that the progression is the same:
    1. Find a uranium source
    2. Let everyone diffuse out over the map
    3. Start building stations
    4. Secure more individual Uranium supplies
    5. Build some small ships
    6. Collect all the yellow ships and start ship breaking (This also happened when people were establishing)
    7. Get more uranium
    8. Now everyone has an established base.
    9. ...
    10. Profit?
    Once you get a base, and get some uranium... you have nothing to do. You can build a super cruiser, but you probably wont use it, nor can you arm it. You can build a fleet of fighters, but you probably will expend more fuel building them than anything else. You can expand your base, but you aren't exactly needing sleeping quarters, so doing a room for refining, a room for your respawn, and a enclosed bay... after that you don't have anything else to build on your station.

    What am I supposed to do after my base is established, other than chip away at the map's resources and antagonize people because I am bored? I mean that is -the- reason that people antagonize each other, because they don't have something else to occupy them. There are ways to do this:
    1. Make tiers of tools/power supplies/thrusters that you can get, each with greater utility and cost over the previous "Tier".
    2. Make food, and tie it to passive health regen, med bay supplies, and/or oxygen supplies. It doesn't have to be something you worry about a Lot. It doesn't have to be -necessary- for survival, but you could introduce it as a way to regen your health passively, or make it so that you have Faster health regen than from the med station. Further, it doesn't -have- to be grain and potatoes. You could make it so that you are growing algae or something, something that would be easier to manage in space and require minimum oxygen. Something that could have a plethora of uses, and something that could take up some space and time... be a long term goal to work towards, but not something that is Required for your survival. As to getting samples to begin production (Someone said there are no seeds in space, earlier in this post) you could introduce NPC traders, or you could potentially find it in some helium/hydrogen deposits. For those saying: "Oh, this isn't realistic, finding algae in an asteroid and I demand 100% realism" Okay, go outside and build a 36 ton space ship, using a handheld welding torch. We'll wait :). In the mean time, I never said it had to be something that was common. Make it really rare to find or make it something you have to research, or make NPC Traders that bring it... this isn't difficult to justify. Algae grows fast enough too, that it would make sense, and could be justified given the time scale we work with in the game. If you really want to get into it, go as far to make biodomes that take like 12 RL hours to grow plants and whatnot and really make this a Long term thing. Go whole hog, and make people worry about fertilizer and whatnot.
    3. Science stations or something like that, something where you can research things in game to get items that aren't initially available
    4. Pressurized hulls: Let stations get pressurized, so that you have someplace to go, that doesn't drain your suite energy, or doesn't kill you if you run out. It should be a power sink, it should take a while to do properly, but when done it -should- make it so that you can sit in a station as long as you want, without dying.
    Don't get me wrong, the game is great, but if it's to have long term appeal, there need to be things IG that take up more room in stations, are optional to make (But everyone benefits by it being on the map), allow specialization, and push people to build towards these long term goals. Again, these things don't have to be required for survival, but can help people along. That way people have a -want- for something, providing it value. You could have a map where 1 guy decides to make a giant algae farm, and people trade him for Algae. We're seeing that on my maps already. Some people settled on Asteroids where they need certain materials, they either resort to piracy, or they ask. If they ask, they want to trade, and you end up setting up a mine for specific goods to supply the whole server. Everyone may be able to get those goods, but if you have a large enough supply you can supply multiple people in exchange for other goods and or services.
     
  4. ZeroProximity Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    9
    Then you sir did not read closely enough, my point was in fact not all of us enjoy fighting other people, some of enjoy uniting with other people to fight of a common threat. and you say that eve brings people together in alliances, that is true, if you join an alliance that is large enough, if you are starting one with a small group of friends prepare to be spawned camped for days on end and trolled anywhere you go
     
  5. PhoenixTheSage Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    677
    This is an absolutely great post. This analysis not only applies to Space Engineers but also to other would be creative/sandbox/survival games such as DayZ, Rust and Minecraft. Long terms goals are something the designers of these games have failed time after time in their talks with the community, to show that they understand where it is they want the game to go after all the superficial tasks are complete. This is what would be defined as re-playability and if your game doesn't have great re-playability as a sandbox game, you've got problems and your community will not stick around very long. However the previously mentioned games are in constant development limbo and their lingering mod communities are what keep them going and provide them with the end-game that the original devs never implemented.

    However I disagree with some of the sentiments that appear on the steam forums as well as here. The developers are not bending to the popular opinion and letting change their original direction. I really believe that Keen did not know for sure what specifically the design would shape into and that's WHY they are so involved here. They have been building this engine to facilitate an easy way of letting the community shape their design goals as they implement systems. Heck you can see in various videos they didn't know whether to call Survival "Survival" or call it "Realism" it has just kept changing. That just tells me there was heavy debate in their team on how far they will go with what they define the game mode and I feel they will do the right thing for the game and push for something better than a glorified creative mode.
     
  6. dpurgert Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105
    This makes no sense.

    What's the difference if the "common threat" is a NPC or another player?

    As far as Eve is concerned, I was in groups ranging from 10 (or fewer) to thousands, and got in my share of fights. Getting camped happens sure ... but that's why you prepare beforehand (and have instant undocks).
     
  7. Skeloton Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,069
    An ai would be incapable of dickish behaviour and are more reliable and predictable than most humans.
     
  8. dpurgert Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105
    I suppose that's a fair assessment, although I'd counter with Minecraft Creepers ... they always had a penchant for breaking my stuff in interesting and annoying ways.


    I used to be in that camp of "us vs. the griefers(tm)" ... but then I realized in "PvP" type games, the point is more about player conflict (actually, that's the whole damn game for "Everyone v. Everyone"), and that anything involving an AI is generally terrible because it is predictable and easily contained (see all those MC contraptions for harvesting creature parts, or Eve-survival [for blitzing missions], or any other MMO-survival quest blitz guides).

    Now, with that said, I'm not opposed to saying that there's a way to set a station as "indestructible" (within reason) in order to have some modicum of "safety" for the stuff inside (such as Eve-O NPC stations), but IMO there'd still need to be a way to take it over (e.g. requires an "Indestructible Generator" (burns Plutonium, available in trace quantities in asteroids, or via U -> Pt conversion in breeder reactors) and setting up a "Master Command Chair" -- looks like a normal command chair, but ONLY controls the Invuln Gen, and is flagged as owned by the placing player(faction when that is implemented), must be destroyed, and a new one set up to take over a station, though destroying either will unflag things until a new one is set up).

    This will make all light and heavy armor blocks physically connected to the station indestructible. Windows and Doors are still able to be cut open (via grinder). On the fence about full/half height walls, and catwalks, etc.

    This is transferable via Rotors or Landing gear to other station blocks only (because hangar doors). It is in no way transferable to "Ship" blocks.

    NOTE --> in order to keep the possibility of capturing a station open, there MUST be the following:

    1. At least one (1) door OR Window block connected to the outside world.
    1. At least one (1) corridor connecting the above door/window to BOTH the "MCC" and "Indestructible Generator".

    You can make the path as complex as you want, with as many other obstacles as you want in between, but it should be possible for a commando team to get in and shut it down. Note -> this does allow you to make it so that given the length and obstacles, it will take multiple trips for a team to finally cut their way in (barring some kind of carry-able suit recharger).


    (only putting this here because I know some wiseguys somewhere would put the MCC and Generator in a sealed off room with the only access via grinding out an indestructible-to-everyone-else armor block).
     
  9. steve5041 Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    20
    Yes, but it's Minecraft with SPACESHIPS!! :)

    And it is a bit more complicated than that. I'm sure they'll add some mobs soon. and you'll need antenae(or maybe radar) to detect them coming and have turrets built ready.

    Turrets .... that's something Minecraft doesn't have!
     
  10. Ericius11 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    463
    Throwing my 2 cents in here as well. There is a definite difference between an AI opponent vs. a human opponent. And the difference goes way deeper than the skill level of your adversary or their attitude towards you.

    For some people, such as myself, we simply have NO interest in playing with other people. Call us socially awkward, weird, xenophobic, etc... we won't care. Playing games is my way to escape reality and experience a world of my own making. I like to immerse myself completely, draw myself in without obligations to other people. If I feel like rebuilding my space station for the 35th to make it just the way I want, I don't need a teammate criticizing my decision. And if I need to suddenly leave the game because my wife wants to go for a short walk outside, I don't want to spend the time worrying about whether so griefer is blowing up my stuff because it's fun. Or worrying that I'm leaving my friends in a lurch. There's tons of other reasons why I don't play multiplayer, and this is only a small scratch on the surface of them. At the end of the day, I'm a single-player gamer at heart.

    At the same time, though, I still want the danger of enemies. Why would I bother fine-tuning the perfect fighter ship only to have no one to fly it against? Adding in NPC characters provides me the danger I need without having to resort to entering the multiplayer realm. They are an essential element to people like myself who want to play the games on our own. We don't want to stop others from playing in the game in multiplayer though. That would be silly to dictate how other people play. We just want the option left open to us to choose.

    I know I'll get at least one response that runs something like, "Well if you don't want to play with other people, this isn't the game for you." I disagree. I LOVE this game. It's tons of fun. Even without NPC's I still will play this game. But I ask you again, why allow people to build combat ships, in a single player game, and not provide them something to fight?
     
  11. dpurgert Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105
    Okay so if you don't want to play with others, then don't play with others (I'm okay with an AI in SP).

    I'm really just opposed to statements like "We need a NPC to shoot at, even though there's that other fleet over there we can shoot."

    (Hint -> every ton of [U|Au|Ag|Pt|Fe|Mg|...] that the other guys on your server mine is a ton you can't use. That's also "PvP" )
     
  12. McHendrik Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    152
    I agree almost entirely with your post. I am also predominately a single-player gamer for the same reasons.

    I also think any comment that "this isn't the game" for lone survivors is absurd. Most of the mechanics and initial conditions in this game scream "lost in space" which is one of the biggest appeals to me. When I started my first realistic world this week and realized I could run out of uranium and lose everything... I had this HUGE goofy grin on my face. REAL survival... I love it!

    Some people want creative sandboxes to smash ships into each other without any cost at all, and that's fine, but it seems silly to have so much of the physics be realistic just to have unlimited resources and instant build time.

    In Survivor mode I really love how you have to hustle just to stay alive, and I also look at the set of weapons and ask myself "why would I use those?" because in terms of SURVIVAL, if there's no enemy, there's no reason to waste resources on weapons. (Some RL countries could take note of that little life lessons, IMO.)

    I felt exactly the same way when I was exploring creative. Half the components I could make were for processing resources, but in creative there's no need for resources, so why bother? The final game should encompass both.

    Oh, and another reason I tend to play alone: Sometimes after a hard day of managing difficult people I don't want to have to manage another set of difficult people to play a game and relax. Some of us manage real people in real life and dealing with people issues in a game (running a guild, dealing with smacktalk, idiots, etc.) is not the kind of challenge we want when we're "having fun". NPCs aren't better because they're easier, they're better because they're not humans.
     
  13. Gheiter Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    184
    This is the best post I've read in a while. It should be wrapped around a rock and thrown to the KSH office trough a window.
     
  14. TheEffectTheCause Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    188
    NEED TEAMS/FACTIONS Something where you fight to defend miners build a fleet protect your homebase have set spawn points which cannot be built again but can be repaired, and have to take out enemy teams, destroy there spawn points while rendering their resource input minimal if not unobtainable something like CNC mode in renegade/ renegade x just space engineers style
     
  15. TheDrgnRbrn Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    40
    Why? I mean, I understand the appeal of playing with other people, but what does artificial constructs like this actually add to the game? Ash87 was right, in that there is no compelling reason to play right now. Adding factions to the game doesn't change this.

    The limitations of the game, in current form, mean that any sort of long term play is limited by resources. This is fine and dandy, it introduces conflict and cooperation, gives you something to do, etc. But then what? You build your first mining ship, find some uranium, haul it back, and you are set. You don't need anything else, do you? Power is, as part of the playerbase is inclined, the only thing that matters, correct? It is still finite, so eventually, no matter how big your factions get, or how organized, or whatever.. Power runs out? Then you, what, just restart on a new server?

    Without incentives to build larger structures, or to search out rarer minerals, there is not much that compels players to do 'limited building' over other modes, other than the basic feeling of building something rather than placing lego blocks. So, those players that feel that survival mode is just supposed to be a more challenging creative mode don't necessarily want anything added to it, besides new toys to play with. Most of the engineering stuff seems to be done in creative anyways, with survival mode just bragging rights. Whereas the players who want to add further complexity to the 'day-to-day living' of the game want to add more unified goals and such to work towards.

    Mainly food for thought, just an observation more than anything.

    On topic, I am a little let down by survival, just because I dont feel the desire to build anything. Giant ships and such take hours to build and do, functionally, nothing. Of course this will change over time, so I have hopes.
     
  16. killerdude Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    102
    It's disappointing at the current state, but it's a step in a very hopeful direction, what happens from herein, get's us closer to the Hardcore space survival we're all dying for..
     
  17. Feralsquirrel Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    8
    I'm in full support of the game getting more in-depth elements such as food, pressurised areas and seeing other developments such as upgrades, research and more.

    Sure, I'm miffed that presently there isn't more: As said already in better posts, what else is there to do at the moment? Sure you can play multiplayer, but it lags like almighty hell. You can't all mine without the server having a seizure for some time even with a few friends, which leads to problems in multiple ways.

    I've introduced SE to friends, despite it's Alpha nature, but they all find it promising due to not just what it already offers, but what can come through further development. Let's face it everyone- it's early access, but it's got more than enough potential.

    KSP, EVE, DayZ, WoW, Minecraft, X series....the list goes on of games we've played, certain elements we've seen and have liked- but this is a different animal. It has the potential to be more, but only with feedback from us, the players. Sure the Developers will have the ultimate say-so on what's included and isn't, but if we don't pipe up and ask, who's to say they'll reply with "no"?

    I'm not alien to PvP, sometimes it's pretty fun- but the ultimate goal of SE, as I see it, isn't just to scrap and wreck the almighty hell out of everyone else's stuff, but to build, survive and progress. We all start out the same: Tiny ship, few resources and a need to mine to get fancy things. At the moment though, after Mining, we all get fancy things. Progression, we need that.

    As already said, more eloquently, once you have fuel, the world is your oyster. Though editors we can have an effectively limitless source of Ore by adding in new 'roids (or outright cheat by having them as balls of pure Ore)- there's no real "what next" after you've found a stable platform of operations. You have all the materials at your fingertips, your toybox is overflowing with all your gear to use whenever you want.

    One thing that above all else I'd like to see is the freedom for players to choose how they play- put control in the hands of the players. We should have more options in Multiplayer when making and joining servers to choose how we enjoy SE. Give us filters for how the servers are run- for example, someone wanting a "true" creative mode can set their options to enable Food, Oxygen, Research or any number of things, while a PvP-oriented server could have creative settings enabled instead to fast-forward without all the "tedious" work of research, etc. Let the browser filter this settings to tailor your results to how -you- want to play. Sure it's no doubt in development or pinned on the corkboard, but as more freedom and features are added, so comes frustration from players joining/quitting as they realise "I don't want to be shot in the face within my first 5 minutes, I want to join in and help do X"

    There needs to be some system we have to work through, hoops to run through, if you will, rather than being let loose in a proverbial toystore with no set budget. There's no harm in having everything if you have to work towards it simply by Mining, but as we all know we inevitably end up with more Ore than the Refinery can deal with, enough Uranium to power a small planet for decades and of course more Bumblebee starter ships drifting, docked or crashed around that it makes Star Wars' Ord-Mantel junkyard look like a compost heap in your own garden.

    Giving players the choice to play SE how they want is the issue- there's that much split opinion on "Moar PvP things, guns, 'splosions!" and "Where's my Hello Kitty air freshener for my pressurised holiday home?", etc, that it's clear that the Dev's have their work cut out for them. Assume, if you will, for a minute, we all get what we want: We get working and more weapon systems, more "true survival" elements such as Food/Air/Water/Pressurisation etc. Is there any harm in it all if it can be enabled/disabled? Especially if the Host has the option to change things on-the-fly? Of course not. This is, of course, assuming it gets added, but irrespective, it pleases the court.

    I'd love to have something that is a "close enough" effort of a realistic space sim- I'd be pleased as punch to be able to research or simply progress with resources up a tool-tree of improvements or ship-mounted equivalents of differing tiers. The same applies to blocks and their development, as said having all the options from the get-go makes SE a dull boy without there being some feeling of accomplishment. To me it feels like entering an MMO with everything with the only deciding factor being time and who has more.

    I can't say I'm bothered either way with AI, as it'll add a huge workload to the Dev's and can be included later down the line after the game is more polished, perhaps. My only concern with this lies with optimisation for MP, as I could see it easily lagging things out. It wouldn't hurt to perhaps have some level of "help", but it should be in such a way that doesn't impact the quality of MP play in terms of bandwidth becoming a factor as more and more AI data needs to be transceived. The idea of having "upgrades" to your suit is excellent in this regard: both in terms of tools as well as improvements to energy storage and such. This way a semblance of balance can enter in as newer players can be helped out immediately by others by giving them improvements, without impacting on the server's workload. Having some kind of drone that follows you and gives a buff though would be equally good for the same reasons.

    Equally I wouldn't object to seeing more PvP elements- Guided missiles, larger turrets, torpedoes, maybe lasers? the list goes on. Even having small-scale ammunition manufacturing capabilities wouldn't be a bad thing irrespective of cargo containers and conveyors. The potential is easily there- SE has enough potential to keep everyone hoping and guessing what we'll get in time. PvP players can have their fun while others get to build up fancy stations with their gardens of Eden generating whatever resources they like.

    There's no ultimate harm in hoping or asking. At the end of the day, depending on how things play out, what the Dev's won't add in can always potentially be improved or inserted via modding. If the game proves to be open to such things, nobody can complain as the potential is there for just about anything- if not, the community can unite in asking and it's down to the Devs, but it's their vision ultimately, not ours. Don't ask? Don't get- but don't hope and you'll never get even that far.
     
  18. Maul555 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    239

    We can't eat a genetically modified algae slurry or something? And surely someone has seeds around here. If there are no seeds or animals left, then exactly what does the human population live off of in this new future without an earth? No food is even more reality bending than the alternative.

    Don't even get me started about the horrible stink that must be locked inside these space suites or the fact that my astronaut never poops!
     
  19. dpurgert Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105
    nah, you're just wearing a stillsuit.
     
  20. McHendrik Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    152
    A stillsuit that isn't powered by the heels when you walk, but by a 9V rechargeable Duracell with 5 minutes of charge, apparently. For some jobs I'd love to be able to plop 400L of uranium powered batteries into my backpack for extended spacewalks.
     
  21. dpurgert Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105
    well, there are a lot of improvements that get made over the next 20,000 years ... ;)
     
  22. aboredteen1 Junior Engineer

    Messages:
    514
    eh about the seeds, no but people grow food in labs, recently a very healthy but bland "soup" of minerals and other raw ingredients. It's only logical that 60 some years from now we would have better lab food. I do agree that we should not have food in se though.
     
  23. toxi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    390
    the point is that nobody knows what kind of game it is ... its not pve .. its somehow pvp ... but not real team pvp ... but then somehow it might be. somewhen. its not really a survival simulation, but in some kind it is ...you can do somehow anything, but it has no point to do it. it feels pretty empty right now.

    yea ... its alpha ... but befor a game becomes alpha .. there is a masterplan ... an idea ... something thats tells us where to start and where to end. there might be an evolution, a change of direction, perhaps the whole concept ...yea .. but i start to think that there is no concept present.

    what i would like to know is: what kind of game is it? what game does it become in the middle and far future?
     
  24. dpurgert Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105

    From what I've seen so far (in blogs, forums, etc) it seems that the game is really intended to be as sand-boxy as possible in that the devs don't want to limit the players if possible. So, the "game" will be different depending on which server you log in to. Some will be safe havens, others not so much.



    For the moment:

    Creative mode = who cares (because you can just create, and ignore the environment).

    Survival Mode = PvP - generally of the "Everyone vs. Everyone" variety. No matter how you want to look at it, there's only limited resources available -- and every KG of U (or whatever) that I obtain is a KG that you cannot use (unless you take it from me).

    "Teams" are only loosely so - we're still in the "pickup game with friends" mode (e.g. "OK, we have a bunch of people ... let's play football on Saturday at the park" and teams are picked right before the game). As time goes on, and more structure is added (by the devs), we'll be able to have "intramural" or "local gym" ladders, where teams will be decided before the game starts (e.g. "United" is me, you, and [other players] in Red ... and the "Spurs" are [those other guys] in Blue).
     
  25. moroder Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    170
    This, times a thousand. I just want to be able to play on my own terms, on my own (limited) time. Not spending ages befriending enough people to get meaningful time windows for playing, not engaging with public server griefing, etc.
     
  26. McHendrik Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    152
    I see your thousand and I raise you another thousand.

    Also: I hate how games becomes so homogenized for "balance" reasons. Example: Right now the ship drills keep getting changed because they're used to damage stations and other ships. They are not as useful for actual MINING right now as they should be. Many games become so uniform just to be sure that PvP players can't get an overpowered advantage from one particular item, but in the process this means that PvE players that want to work themselves up to having a powerful ship or station can't do that. To my mind this has made the PvE side of many games boring for those of us that just don't find PvP smacktalk and griefing to be fun.

    I understand that most games have both. I understand PvP is a valid model of play. I get that PvP is a part of the fabric of this game and isn't going away. But the number of games in the past couple years that have been really deep and have not had PvP screw it up I could count on one hand.

    One option is to have stats on items change when you disable weapons. Make the toggle just say "disable PvP" and then put drills back to what they need to do so we can use them, etc. If stats on items have to be "just so" for PvP, well fine, but make them "just so" for PvE with a toggle please.
     
  27. toxi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    390
    the point is: there are better pvp games based on blocks.

    ppl who want to play PvP want to join a server and see blood. they dont want to farm minerals and build stuff .. they want to frag stuff.

    SE has potential as PvE game. a lot of potential in cooperative PvE .. perhaps with a bit of PvP ... but the fokus has to be PvE, or it will fail.
     
  28. dpurgert Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    105
    You do realize that mining all the Uranium off a map is still PvP, right?
     
  29. toxi Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    390
    yes and no. its not impossible to generate infinite ressources ... but even then: you have a point with that. the question is, as always, how it will be perceived by the player ... there is a difference between "damn, he was faster at the uranium" to "he killed me"
     
  30. Vermillion Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,131
    If cargo ships are enabled, there's infinite uranium.
    Their reactors hold 1-2kg of uranium, mining ships also carry uranium ore and Business Freighters sometimes carry 15-17kg of Uranium Ingots in their containers.
     
Thread Status:
This last post in this thread was made more than 31 days old.