Cyclops Thermal Power?
The08MetroidMan
Join Date: 2016-09-23 Member: 222527Members
Join Date: 2016-09-23 Member: 222527Members
To be short and to the point, I was browsing the Trello today when I came across this list for further tweaks to the Cyclops' functions, one of which was the inclusion of a Thermal Power module that seems like it will be based off of the Prawn Suit's. An idea that I personally would like as it would cut back a bit on the absolute necessity of having Ion Cells to get anywhere if you can just recharge near high heat sources.
https://trello.com/c/Wx6d0eSs/6451-add-cyclops-thermal-reactor
https://trello.com/c/BXRQzNoQ/6450-cyclops-silent-running-pass-2
Thoughts?
https://trello.com/c/Wx6d0eSs/6451-add-cyclops-thermal-reactor
https://trello.com/c/BXRQzNoQ/6450-cyclops-silent-running-pass-2
Thoughts?
Comments
That's only two cells at a time, though. And you have to swim back and fourth between the Prawn and Cyclops, so you're vulnerable to wildlife like the Sea Dragon in the ILZ. Not everyone's a daredevil like you.
That reminds me how the devs think the player should drill vertical resources. Drillarm and Grappling hook, then switch and pick up the resources that fell down.
No automatic resource pickups. Because that would be TOO EASY. Let the player fiddle with controls and avoid having simple solutions. Why allow a simple action, when it can be split into 2 actions? And never heard of inventions where you could drill and harvest at the same time?
And here it's natural to use the Prawn as a recharger instead just allowing the Cyclops thermal recharging.
@zetachron I hope they change that some day. Would be a really nice quality of life fix if the drill arm could "suck/pick" up the resources it drills. Would make mining so much more comfortable.
http://subnautica.wikia.com/wiki/Cyclops_Sonar_Upgrade
@zetachron I'm not completly use to the prawn, but I clearly agree that having to pickup every ressources after mining is horrible ..
The nuclear reactor gets some love from the devs. I read on two Trello cards that first all reacotors will get a x5 buff for output & capacity aswell as all fuels. Additionally to that the rods will get the double buff. That brings them up to 10.000 energy/rod and a full load of rods could sustain a nuclear reactor at their new max. output of 250 energy/min for 160minutes. Does that make them useful? I dunno...I still prefer our "best" available reactor to have the same unlimited power as solar and thermal but with even more output and capacity then the new & improved nuclear reactor. Maybe we just need another form of reactor that could fill that role.
We have no "nuclear" power level and length, no "nuclear" risk and not even radiation distinguishing the reactor from the others. Only a difference from power to the bioreactor and the complexity to forge rods for it to work. We have no nuclear waste disposal problem other than having a special bin to drop the rods into it with no other disadvantages. Summary: The nuclear reactor doesn't feel "nuclear" at all, with advantages as well as disadvantages. We could just label it "Superadvanced Bioreactor" - no difference, other than needing uranite instead biomaterial.
Suggestions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Energy_accidents#Fatalities
TL;DR: the only safer source of power than nuclear is Hydro, and then only if you're in the US. Nuclear > all
Also, for your education:
https://blog.xkcd.com/2011/03/19/radiation-chart/
and
What if I took a swim in a typical spent nuclear fuel pool?
Please2not make nuclear the bogey man in the closet, it's really one of the best power sources out there, and if we felt like it, there's even reactor designs (called breeder reactors) that use spent nuclear fuel from earlier reactors, and there's also others that would shut themselves down and seal themselves off, even without power and without coolant (molten salt reactors).
I don't see that reactor incidents would make the reactor any more worthwhile. Yes maybe you should need to equip the Rad-suit to handle rods and if you do without you get constant damage. That is one thing we can agree on. But the other things...would just make the reactor even more unappealing to players. I dunno if the whole nuclear reactor balancing can be done by pure value tuning. I do think though it should run longer then a bioreactor full of fish even so it puts out ten times the power per minute in comparison.
I think the nuclear reactor as it is (needing fuel) should not be our highest tier reactor. I think we need a self-sustaining reactor as "best choice" for late-/endgame. Maybe a fusion reactor that pulls its fuel out of the seawater. Another user made his own 3D model for such a reactor and we discussed quite alot about how it could be possible to self sustain once it got "started". So with a little disbelief and some videogame logic such a reactor could run forever and be better then a normal nuclear reactor at the same time.
So the way I see it they either have to make the nuclear reactor don't use up it's rods. Instead each rod enhances it's output, so with 4 rods it is at maximum output per minute.
OR
They introduce a whole new reactor on top of the current nuclear reactor that has unlimited power and the best output and storage of all power generating devices as mentioned in above examples fusion reactor. Because as a midlevel reactor it is fine as it is especially wiht it's new values.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but don't certain real-life submarines like diesel ones run off of batteries when submerged, and have to resurface to recharge them? It stands to reason that the Cyclops should also have solar recharging for its Power Cells as well. But for a matter of balance (and to differentiate it from the Seamoth solar recharging) they can use these points:
1. It an only recharge solar when on the surface (0 meters deep) instead of the depth limits of Solar Panels/Seamoth (they recharge up to limits of 250 meters but at reduced power)
2. The Cyclops must be powered down to recharge; moving the sub or using appliances will stop the charging.
3. The recharge rate won't be as fast as a Seamoth. If it has one PC it solar charges as fast as the Seamoth, but recharging more cells will reduce the overall recharging rate (1 cell=0 meter charge rate, 6 cells=200 meter charge rate).
This is obviously just spitballing an idea, but it could add some realism as well as a convenience.
I'm not asking for realistic... but current power problems in this game make the whole thing feel like something from a century back. Running on diesel with compressed air tanks for oxygen and bottled cola for water. Sad...
For me the biggest issue with nuclear is total functional time; having it provide much more power is nice, but the QoL level of "how often do I have to replace the rods" is the main thing that will make or break it for me. Every 2.5 hours isn't so bad, but does feel a little short.
Would also be nice if the game had a nice way of warning when the reactor is spent - maybe have it light up a few red lights, so you can tell from outside though a window that it needs a refuel? Otherwise I will end up checking it way more than I need to out of paranoia...
Verisimilitude is the game aligning with things from the real world that would be true in the game world, internal consistency, as well as reasonable and limited extensions to what's in the real world. Some gameplay adjustments to that are reasonable. But not to the point of silliness.
Example: the Cyclops is intended for other-world underwater exploration. Yet had crazy range limitation just for gameplay purposes that make it less than useful for its design purpose. In reality, such a sub as the Cyclop would be nuclear (thermal, fission, or fusion) and/or solar powered to give it range and freedom to fulfill its design purpose. Putting in a gameplay-nerfed Cyclops is less than elegant. Far better to find a better way.
You are right about the old subs. I think they did that in WWI and WWII and even some time after that for those nations that did not have nuclear powers or were not allowed to build nuclear submarines like Germany. Our newest Submarine though runs on hydrogen and is more silent then modern nuclear subs. So yes they did use two engines Diesel for range and on surface movemnt and battery charging and electric for underwater movement and stealth. They even used a snorkle system to use the Diesel engine at shallow depths without having to surface the whole sub as a way to recharge and move without fully exposing the sub.
But I don't think that this would be a good way to go for a sub in a universe where humans advanced to interstellar travel. According to a Trello card we will get a thermal plant for the Cyclops. I still hope with all those upgrades, that we get one or two more upgrade slots for the Cyclops. And they said with the newly posted changes the soon will hit the experimental version that they cut the energy demand of the Cyclops in half IIRC. That should really help in maintaining energy.
Also: Compelling gameplay is always more important even than verisimilitude. The depth and power limits on the cyclops are a really important gameplay element, and changing them to be more "realistic" would hurt the game.
And the game time as noted in the PDA log is about 128 times the speed of real world time playing the game. So most times can be thought to be scaled up like that. Velocities make no sense when scaled though.
It's like a lot of games, where trying to make sense of the parts show emergent scaling in the design. And often those emergent scales aren't the same. Often you have to work a design to avoid scales becoming different.
Subnautica was designed as a patch under the sea to explore. Considering how detailed it is and common limited visibility, and games running up to around a hundred hours of play, it can work being only a few kilometres across. Then the dates of events are added to the PDA. And a power system is added in parts. And some of it makes sense better with the emergent scaling between PDA time and real play time. But not the velocities as they were designed with 1:1 in mind.
Silent Running 2.0 has come out on Experimental and from what I and others see, some improvements but still some problems. The new power system is still being worked out and we'll have to see what's it's like.
I'm a technican and as such see nuclear power as it is: Incredible powerful and useful, although best replaced by fusion power once it's working. It's rather the devs making the green energy reactors powerful and the nuclear reactor so useless who seem to favor green energy.
Of course nuclear power has some practical disadvantages:
My suggestions were to make nuclear power more distinctive from the other powers and give more use to the rad suit, that would be needed to operate the power. The disadvantage of operation would be met with the advantage of rich power.
Verisimilitude is important in many cases, but it isn't chiefly necessary anymore than it's absence is - it depends on what aspect is being looked at. It's a sliding scale where it cannot ever go purely one way or the other. In many cases I can get arguing it (the ILZ corridor, Cyclops hull strength, etc), but in other cases (such as things like phasegate technology), it can't be applied due to the absence of a real-world counterpart.
But if it's a direct trade-off between gameplay and consistency, gameplay should come first IMO. Most people will forgive a game full of plot holes if the gameplay is amazing, but few people will tolerate a game with lots of realism but crap gameplay.
If the rest state (lowest energy) of gravitational energy is being on the ground then the rest state of thermal energy is homogenous (same throughout) temperature. While high potential energy of gravitational energy is being up high and for thermal energy it's having separate areas with very hot and very cold. Energy can be extracted from a falling object like a waterwheel (while immersing a water wheel entirely under water doesn't give any energy) and energy can be extracted from hot (high pressure) fluid cooling down (flowing towards low pressure), like in a turbine. While a waterwheel submerged under water has water with potential energy on top of it, work can't be extracted since that water has nowhere to flow down to. So too is a thermoelectric generator or engine surrounded by uniform heat unable to extract work from the heat energy since that heat has nowhere to flow down to.
So a thermal vent with steam next to near freezing water is an excellent energy source while the giant hot water bath in the lava areas can't do anything for you unless you're pumping in cold water. I see the cables jutting out of the alien thermal plant as mostly being pipes supplying cold water to make the plant work.
I wish more people understood this. As an aside, with the thermal inversion present between the LR and ILZ, we should have incredibly strong currents through the connecting passage and it would be a great location for a turbine.
Back on topic, one thought I had that could both improve realism and solve the problem of spamming thermal generators for infinite power is to make each thermal vent a snap point for a thermal plant, so only one thermal plant can be placed per vent. This would provide a finite amount of thermal power in the game world so it can't be exploited as an infinite power source. Even in the ILZ, there should be enough of a temperature difference between the water inside the vent and the surrounding water to generate some energy.
Years? Nah... hundreds of millenia