Why you don't use the nuclear reactor

adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members Posts: 388 Advanced user
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

Why you don't use the nuclear reactor 71 votes

It takes too much maintenance to keep it running
33%
Alex93090FathombaronvonsatanNumber35repkinsJckingHiguideAmadeonekwm1800Voxelsupertiger2340Hulkie2345AkuMasterofMastersSky_The_FoxdasCKDTraildawgFredontheForumvargatazontwitchVectorMaster22 24 votes
Reactor rods are too expensive to make
28%
JarinkingkumaTheWaffleLeviathanJamezorgDrownedOutadel_50SnailsAttackLordArmageddonAlphasoldiersplendidgamer46StormShockerGoldenApplesOhioinfantryBlueSpottedPepperSnoutchiBTown780Theukondosthe1ultimatemillievdbPotoma 20 votes
the reactor rods don't last enough
38%
AlexvrbSchlomolonelywolfsabin77RainstormCalarand77AvimimusLonnehartBourrinopatheKelliseGawainCrewman87Bobafgarathrogar10matijas_05gamer1000kEstebanLB01Sam_StarfallWiirlak 27 votes
Altazi
«134

Comments

  • narfblatnarfblat Utah, USA Join Date: 2016-05-15 Member: 216799Members Posts: 548 Advanced user
    I still plan to use nuclear reactors.
    How to clear your Cache, by 0x6A7232.
    How to use console commands. (Currently PC only, sorry)
    Stuck, and just want to most recent base/Cyclops? Use "Warpme" command. Want to get out of the ceiling? Press F1 and note your camera postion. First number is North/South, second number is up/down, and third is East/West. Reduce the 2nd number by 10, then use "warp x y z" (where x, y, and z are the position you want to be).
    captaincolt_
  • SnailsAttackSnailsAttack Join Date: 2017-02-09 Member: 227749Members Posts: 521 Advanced user
    Reactor rods are too expensive to make
    I kinda just look at the reactor rod recipe and go "pshhthpppphpthp" and give up cuz it aint worth the cost for power that i just don't really need.
    baronvonsatanTraildawgJustAHat
  • JackeJacke Calgary Join Date: 2017-03-20 Member: 229061Members Posts: 582 Advanced user
    I've not taken a game far enough in tech for a long while to use the Nuclear Reactor. And even then it was just as a test combined with other power sources.

    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.
    The 'e' is silent. BRING BACK "Great job not dying." !!!
    Alexvrb
  • Morph_GuyMorph_Guy Join Date: 2016-04-21 Member: 216034Members Posts: 490 Advanced user
    edited January 2018
    Maybe adding giving Uraninite Crystals a chance to be inside the rocks that Sea Treader's unearth would help.


    AlexvrbMartGkwm1800
  • adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members Posts: 388 Advanced user
    Reactor rods are too expensive to make
    I personally think that if they are going to keep the recipe as it is they should yield 2 or 3 reactor rods instead of 1
    Alexvrb
  • adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members Posts: 388 Advanced user
    Reactor rods are too expensive to make
    dasCKD wrote: »
    Nuclear reactor rods in general are irritating due to the fact that they're basically bioreactors which
    1. Can't be farmed
    2. 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
  • RezcaRezca United States Join Date: 2016-04-28 Member: 216078Members Posts: 1,056 Advanced user
    Skope wrote: »
    B-B-But...

    I do use the Nuclear Reactor...

    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?
    A Great Jaggi under the sea~

    DemusOpalium
  • lonelywolflonelywolf Sweden Join Date: 2015-05-21 Member: 204737Members Posts: 27 Advanced user
    the reactor rods don't last enough
    bioreactors are my favourit, cheap and give good energy.
  • adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members Posts: 388 Advanced user
    Reactor rods are too expensive to make
    lonelywolf wrote: »
    bioreactors are my favourit, cheap and give good energy.

    That's the main reason why they make nuclear reactors obsolete (cheap,good energy source and not hard to keep it running)
    Wiirlak
  • adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members Posts: 388 Advanced user
    Reactor rods are too expensive to make
    Blrg wrote: »
    Currently (58791) each nuclear rod seems to give a total of 10.000 Energy before it gets depleted, which correspond to 8.3 full Cyclops charges with regular power cells, or only 1.6 cyclops with Ion power cells. (Not that we need more than a thermal vent to charge it, just sayin)

    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.

    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
  • dasCKDdasCKD Join Date: 2017-11-14 Member: 233978Members Posts: 34 Advanced user
    It takes too much maintenance to keep it running
    adel_50 wrote: »
    dasCKD wrote: »
    The cyclops's engine is not a nuclear powered engine so it doesn't make sense allowing it to use power rods

    It was but an example. My point is that it offers none of the lack of maintenance of the permanent generators nor the relative versatility of the bioreactor. If the cyclops could be adapted to use nuclear rods then at least nuclear rods would offer a potential application down at the depths where uranium is common. It's not like the devs can't handwave away any technical breaks from reality considering the current design for nuclear reactors that entirely lacks water venting or a reactor steam siphon.
    Alexvrb
  • Sam_StarfallSam_Starfall Join Date: 2017-05-21 Member: 230665Members Posts: 197 Advanced user
    edited January 2018
    the reactor rods don't last enough
    I would give more of my opinion, but in my opinion the only improvement would be to abandon the idea of generator also storing the energy (making the battery and Cells charger do that instead)
    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
  • VincentNZVincentNZ Germany Join Date: 2016-05-31 Member: 217829Members Posts: 69 Advanced user
    I have used the nuclear reactor in later bases, but I rarely use more than two bases and the bioreactor offers some great convenience, similar to the solar engine. Providing a good amount of energy at a very low cost and doing so constantly.
    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.
  • LordArmageddonLordArmageddon Join Date: 2017-03-07 Member: 228713Members Posts: 14 Fully active user
    Reactor rods are too expensive to make
    It's just not worth it. I NEED MORE POWER CHEAPER!!!!!!
  • DC_DarklingDC_Darkling Join Date: 2003-07-10 Member: 18068Members, Constellation, Squad Five Blue, Squad Five Silver Posts: 4,381 Advanced user
    You do not have a vote option 'they are pointless'.
    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.
    NS2
    Old/resigned Dutch Translation Lead. Give feedback about the translation, or help improve by clicking: Current NS2 Dutch translation project. Dutch players apply!
    NS2 Server Maintenance Manual
    WorkshopBackup Manual (WSB Server)
    Ingame: DCDarkling
    'DCDs Steam Workshop', for your NS2 X-Hairs and Viewmodel Weapon mods
    Viewmodels are the ones you hold in your hand, not the one shown in the world!

    Old NS2 Stuff:
    Marine Commander Guide NS2
    Alien Commander Guide NS2
    NS2 Mentor Program
    Old NS1 stuff:
    'Infested Pack v0.6' for models & props
    Darklings Guide to Commanding Version 1.001
    adel_50
  • garathgarath Texas Join Date: 2017-02-08 Member: 227730Members Posts: 922 Advanced user
    edited January 2018
    the reactor rods don't last enough
    A while ago, they beefed up the power production of the bioreactor so that it essentially outputs on par with the nuclear reactor. Before that change, it seemed like the nuclear reactor would output power on par with like 10x faster. In that case, if you wanted to run multiple water purifiers and have multiple Moon Pools and multiple Power Cell Chargers in a deep base with no access to thermal, then nuclear seemed reasonable.

    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.
  • BlrgBlrg Join Date: 2013-09-01 Member: 187580Members, Reinforced - Supporter, Reinforced - Gold, Reinforced - Shadow Posts: 153 Advanced user
    edited January 2018
    garath wrote: »
    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
    RezcagarathEccleZone
  • Hulkie2345Hulkie2345 New York Join Date: 2017-08-23 Member: 232598Members Posts: 276 Advanced user
    It takes too much maintenance to keep it running
    There's just no benefit for the nuke reactor. While it does give off better energy, the gathering part of it is boring, or annoying. I do make Nuclear Reactors. But only when I make a base that is near its spawn area. The Bio is pretty much good for everything. I rather make 10 bio's over 2 nukes. Plus, visually the nuke reactor is dull. The Bioreactor has animations. The pipes move, the fin and liquid churn around. And they added a animated door. The Nuke does nothing, but a hum. Visually, it's boring. Power wise, not really needed.
    0x6A7232
  • JamezorgJamezorg United Kingdom Join Date: 2016-05-15 Member: 216788Members Posts: 958 Advanced user
    Reactor rods are too expensive to make
    If I could vote for this and the last one I would. Reactor rods should last a lot longer than they do for what they're worth.
    I am currently writing a fantasy novel which I plan to be the beginning of a six-seven book series.
    To sate my thirst for people to read my stories, however, I write one on the forums in the meantime: FE . DC .
    0x6A7232Rezca
  • kingkumakingkuma cancels Work: distracted by Dwarf Fortress Join Date: 2015-09-25 Member: 208137Members Posts: 825 Advanced user
    Reactor rods are too expensive to make
    Personally, I just fill the bioreactor with reginalds. In fact, I basically use all the energy sources except for nuclear, mainly because it's not renewable. You'll run out of UO2 eventually.
    I am Kingkuma, Leader of the PH/SP , Slayer of Cuddlefish, Conspiracy theorist , Humanizer of warpers , Shifter of sands , Creator of Fanart , Enemy of Crabsquids , Hater of Lava Larvae , Winner of the great stalker bar brawl of 2017 , Creator of flowcharts , Killer of time , Romancer of warpers ,and head designer for the ALTERRA 5th airborne division.

    I have a webcomic. It involves Tsundere Nereids, Canadians, magic, girls wielding crossbows, and possibly Scott Pilgrim. It updates every Wednesday at 4 pm EST. Check it out. (No, please, check it out.)

    Also: Stop hating on the warpers. They have feelings too, ya'know.
    Rezca
  • adel_50adel_50 Join Date: 2016-09-01 Member: 221973Members Posts: 388 Advanced user
    Reactor rods are too expensive to make
    I want to thank everyone who commented on this thread I honestly didn't thought I would get a lot of attention on this subject but with such an awesome community here i was completely wrong hopefully one of game team members have taken a look at this thread and considered doing something (maybe not now but in the near future) so again thank you guys for participating in this poll I appreciate this a lot
  • JckingJcking Join Date: 2017-01-27 Member: 227344Members Posts: 24 Advanced user
    edited January 2018
    It takes too much maintenance to keep it running
    A bioreactor is much easier to fuel, just grow some creepvine then cut that down and shove it in, not much else needed (plus you usually have one passive generator in the form of solar panels or thermal reactors). On top of that I don't really require the bioreactor that often, since solar and thermal usually cover me.
  • OlmyOlmy Join Date: 2003-05-08 Member: 16142Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Developer, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond Posts: 1,452 Advanced user
    edited January 2018
    Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. We're making the following changes to power production to reduce the amount of maintenance required to use nuclear reactors and to address balance issues with some of the farm-able plants.
    • Reduced all bio reactor fuel values by ~15%
    • Increased marble melon growth time to 1000 seconds.
    • Additionally reduced marble melon energy content by 20%.
    • Reduced gel sack energy content by almost 50%.
    • Doubled the energy content of reactor rods, so they last 80 minutes each, but we may adjust further.
    • Removed glass from reactor rod recipe
    Post edited by Olmy on
    Rezca0x6A7232baronvonsatanSkope
  • garathgarath Texas Join Date: 2017-02-08 Member: 227730Members Posts: 922 Advanced user
    edited January 2018
    the reactor rods don't last enough

    Blrg wrote: »
    garath wrote: »
    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.

    Fake news!
  • poesbrupoesbru CH Join Date: 2018-01-03 Member: 234783Members Posts: 12 Fully active user
    edited January 2018
    Noticed the bulboa (whatever) nerf on experimental the other day, so started eating more melons, now apparently they're being nerfed in order to help encourage nuclear proliferation! Madness!

    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!
    0x6A7232
  • JackeJacke Calgary Join Date: 2017-03-20 Member: 229061Members Posts: 582 Advanced user
    poesbru wrote: »
    Noticed the bulboa (whatever) nerf on experimental the other day, so started eating more melons....
    I've stopped cultivating Bulbo Trees too. I used to use them to top up Water to 100% before going on a trip outside my base or Cyclops. The change of Bulbo Tree samples from 3 Food + 10 Water to 6 Food + 3 Water made that require too many samples. So I switched to just using Marblemelons, Chinese Potato, and Lamp Tree fruit, all of which I was already cultivating.

    Jcking wrote: »
    A bioreactor is much easier to fuel, just grow some creepvine then cut that down and shove it in, not much else needed (plus you usually have one passive generator in the form of solar panels or thermal reactors). On top of that I don't really require the bioreactor that often, since solar and thermal usually cover me.
    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.

    Olmy wrote: »
    Hey guys, thanks for the feedback. We're making the following changes to power production to reduce the amount of maintenance required to use nuclear reactors and to address balance issues with some of the farm-able plants.
    • Reduced all bio reactor fuel values by ~15%
    • Increased marble melon growth time to 1000 seconds.
    • Additionally reduced marble melon energy content by 20%.
    • Reduced gel sack energy content by almost 50%.
    • Doubled the energy content of reactor rods, so they last 80 minutes each, but we may adjust further.
    • Removed glass from reactor rod recipe
    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.


    The 'e' is silent. BRING BACK "Great job not dying." !!!
  • OlmyOlmy Join Date: 2003-05-08 Member: 16142Members, NS1 Playtester, Contributor, NS2 Developer, NS2 Map Tester, Reinforced - Diamond Posts: 1,452 Advanced user
    edited January 2018
    Even with the marble melon nerf (it's just 1000 seconds, not 1000 with an additional 25% increase), it's still very viable as a water and food source. Additionally, reginalds are not available everywhere; marble melons and other farmable plants have a large advantage in that they can be farmed directly in your cyclops.

    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.
«134
Sign In or Register to comment.