Why you don't use the nuclear reactor
adel_50
Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members
Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members
After the previous changes to the bio reactor the nuclear reactor was left behind with nothing special about it to be a considered as an option to power up your base so why you aren't using ,it what can the devs do to fix this, write it down below
Now whether the changes will be added post or pre 1.0 is fine by me as long as they consider giving it a bit of a buff
Now whether the changes will be added post or pre 1.0 is fine by me as long as they consider giving it a bit of a buff
Comments
I start out with Solar Panels. I've not set up a deep base so they're good enough for now. I have 12 Solar Panels on my main base to give enough power and overnight storage to keep 2 Water Filtration Machines going.
Most I've used besides Solar is Thermal Plants on a surface geyser. Like Nuclear, I've only used one Bioreactor to test. I can see using Bioreactors on very small limited bases at depth limited to some fabrication and battery recharge, but if you try to do serious work like vehicle/powercell recharge or WFMs a Bioreactor is just like a constant Solar Panel with 4 times the storage and will get overwhelmed.
Small bases you likely want to limit to 1 MPR, so to get serious power you'll need to go Nuclear or Thermal.
- Can't be farmed
- Require specialized disposal
If reactor rods could be used as an alternative inside of the cyclops or had some other application, then it might be more attractive. Having a power source that can't self-maintain in what is primarily an exploration game however is just not appealing. Even if the cost was lowered, I still can't see myself using it. There is nothing that could be done with reactor rods that can't be done with a bed full of gel sacs and a bioreactor.The cyclops's engine is not a nuclear powered engine so it doesn't make sense allowing it to use power rods
I do use the Nuclear Reactor...
A bioreactor deposit full with 4 Marblemelons give 4x700=2.800 Energy
A bioreactor full of gel sacks give 16x315 = 5.040 Energy, which seems outrageous compared to a reactor rod
Yes, you need 5 bioreactors to have the same Power (energy per second) than a Nuclear Reactor... but it is kind of easier to maintain multiple Bioreactors (despite the fact that you have tons of uranite everywhere, it is a headache compared to something that grows in your room of the reactor or just outside)
But more important than all this: 4 Thermal Plants give the same Power than a Nuclear Reactor... with infinite and constant energy, so you will never need to replace a nuclear rod. And they are super small and don't require space inside the base. But we will talk about all this at the end
The problem with marblemelons is that they cost 0 resources and they grow on their own superfast. They are an excellent addition to the game to overcome the hunger/thirst problem that it is becoming a little tedious and boring by the point in which you finally find them. But I don't like them to be a superior alternative to nuclear energy (which should be the end-game energy source).
My first proposal to improve a little all this energy problems:
1) Make the growth of plants indoors to cost a little bit of energy (for the oxygen they consume, etc) which will make you feel you pay something to eat, especially when people like me harvest them inside their cyclops
2) Make every room in an habitacle to consume a little bit of power (for light and oxygen) it is super weird that they don't consume anything. Finding a sweet spot for this room energy consumption will produce that early game players won't notice it, because their bases will be small. But larger bases on late game will have more need of higher energy sources making a necessity to build a nuclear reactor for insanely big bases. Honestly right now you only spend energy to charge batteries. Everything else (like water filtration machine or scanner room we just keep them running to do something). So increase the cost per room and reduce the energy cost of Scanner Room and Water Filtrtation Machine
2b) As an extra, you can make that the power consumption of every room to increase on extreme conditions (of extreme heat or cold) in order to acclimatize the interior temperature
3) Increase the total energy produced by a Nuclear Reactor to at least 20.000, or produce more than 1 rod with the same product. Maybe 3 rods would be adequate as someone recommended. Maybe also increase a little its power production so it becomes more the only option for huge bases (from the current 4.16 Energy/s to maybe 6 Energy/s
3) Physically speaking makes no sense to be able to build more than 1 Thermal Plant on each small Thermal Vent. I accept the possibility of higher amounts on Lava Geysers and even unlimited number of plants on active lava-areas, but not on a simple heat point. I can't stress this enough. Thermal plants are OP compared to the rest (and make little sense). Even if you do this limitation I will probably connect multiple plants on different thermal vents to my base, but at least it will require some thought and effort.
Same; though I like to diversify and try out different things at different times. Like current game I'm using Mountain-based thermal vents, and used bio until I relocated. Nuclear - last I checked - does produce energy *faster* than the bio, but does require the aforementioned specialized disposal which can potentially be a problem. I don't find the reactor rods too expensive, but I haven't played in a while so I'm not sure if the recipe's changed again or not. It's definitely a lil more work though than just mass-breeding spadefish for the bioreactor though.
I know using monsters like the Boneshark or such are more efficient than the preyfish, but I don't want to use the monsters I hatch for bioreactor fuel ;v; They're my precious little fish friends. (Yeah I'm a dork, I know xD)
With that being said, since they mentioned the Uranite/Uranium might cause Radiation Damage when you're carrying them w/o a rad suit, then that'd be another potential thing against the Nuclear Reactor for folks - so it'd need a buff in some way as a result if they go through with it. Maybe lengthened reactor rod lifespan?
That's the main reason why they make nuclear reactors obsolete (cheap,good energy source and not hard to keep it running)
If a dev sees your comment I hope they go with the option number 3 because this is the best thing to do and the other suggestions are completely on point buddy
because so long as it's kept as it is, our choice of generator also include how many we can build be price instead of say, producing a good amount for a long time.
that would be my 2 cents
The problem stems from the fact that bioreactors give out a lot of power (400, right?), which is a lot, usually more than you need in your first base, even if you charge four batteries, two power cells and fabricate stuff especially when paired with two solar panels.
I believe that the main problem is that power consumption of the base is not high enough and a threshold should be implemented. Say a corridor costs 10 base energy, a multipurpose room 50 and a scanner room costs 100, a Moonpool 200. So for a regular base in the shallows you would need, say, 500 base energy. So with two solar panels and a bioreactor, you would need another energy source to even fabricate something.
Then they can keep the current constant drain of WFM, or even not allow energy storage at all for solar panels, so that energy depletes at night.
Same could be done with the thermal plant. Ah and maybe the deeper you go, the more base energy buildings need.
With this you can then also allow for preferred energy draw. Say your base costs 800 energy, a nuclear provides 1000. Add a bioreactor, which is easier to maintain and the fabricated resources would draw energy from the biorector first, if you get my drift. This way nuclear rods would last longer as well.
I would vote that.
I build one once in my SN playing to see what it did. After it was used never.
Its just that the other energy options are easier, cheaper, more manageable and really.. do you not NEED the nuclear power.
I would LOVE for them to implement something like a cyclops dock which would eat enormous amounts of power. And for them to scale up the nuclear power gain, so its realistic the only viable solution for this dock.
Or something like that.
So make nuclear give more power, and build some power requirements in the game so we NEED it.
Now, though, Bio seems about as fast and is a ton less work for me to maintain. In my early bases, I put melons in the interior grow beds next to the bioreactor. Then, when I eat, I fill the reactor. For nuclear to be worth the hassle, I would want a fuel rod to last TEN real time hours.
A rod doesn't last "hours", it last 10.000 energy. That can last you for just a few minutes if you are charging plenty of Cells, or it can last you forever even if you have 1000 moonpools.
A Moonpool doesn't spend energy unless it is charging the Power Cells on a Seamoth or a Prawn Suit
Right now you can only spend energy by: charging batteries/power cells, having the Scanner room searching for stuff, while the Water Filter Machine is producing new water/salt, and using the Fabricator
Fake news!
I haven't used nuclear because it's unnecessary. I made one for fun, once, but it's obvious why the alternatives are better. Bio doesn't seem affected much by this change. 15% worse is insignificant. And melons are for eating. 1000 seconds, and possibly 25% in addition (wot?), seems like it'll affect melon eaters instead of melon burners, since would be melon-burners are probably reginald-burners instead, since why would you burn melons? amirite? Sometimes I have nothing but melons to survive on. 1000 seconds and/or 25% growing time just means i'll have to carry around a chair to stare at my melons. Nice interactive gameplay, gais!
It would be better for you to run Bioreactors off of Marblemelons, Peepers, or Reginalds. The last two need Alien Containment (or a lot of fishing), but Marblemelons can be grown in Plant Pots or Plant Shelves in the same MPR that holds the Bioreactor.
I don't understand changing both Bioreactors and Nuclear Reactors at the same time. I know time's short before release, but do both really need to be changed at the same time?
Reducing Bioreactor fuel values means they'll have to fueled more often. Which means players will switch to more energy-dense fuels. Hitting Marblemelons also hurts them as a food source, and are they really too much energy to need two hits against them? Players will just grow more of them for food and fuel. And I know Gel Sacks grow quickly but are they so overpowered for energy?
Maybe the changes to Reactor Rods would be sufficient.
Having said that if these are too controversial I may reduce some of the farming changes/bio reactor changes. From my experience 2 planters with watermelons is more than enough to sustain my food and water requirements indefinitely. This is a powerful setup considering that there is no power requirements and basically no cost to build planters.