Making a judging system for reactors

    So i already made a pretty nice list of good reactors but now i want to use a good system to determine what a are good reactors and what are not good reactors. It will have to be based on numbers not on opinions. So far i came up with this:
    1. Output measured in average eu output
    2. Uranium efficiency measured in average pulses per uranium cell
    3. Cost of the reactor in iron
    4. Cost efficiency measured in Iron per eu output (its not perfect but its pretty near to it)
    5. Classification (obliviously a mk1 doing the same thing as a mk5 is way better)
    6. Space requirement in blocks
    7. Ease of use (big reactor doing exactly the same thing (same output cost eff etc) as 5 smaller reactors is easier to use thus better)


    In case 2 reactors have exactly the same specs i will look at what design is easier to remember (for instance symetrical designs are easier to remember). If this still does not shows a clear winner i will declare them equal. Not sure about this but i dont have anything better atm.


    I think this would be a pretty solid system to judge whether a reactor is good or not. Through if you can translate the stuff you get out of this into some sort of rating it would be even better (dont expect me to do this through). Feel free to ad your ideas and opinions about this.

    Are we talking single reactors here or mutli cores?
    Do we include CASUCS? How do we rank those when there are a whole bunch of external cooling components involved?
    In the case of CASUC reactors, do we count space taken over layout? (Small, hard to construct vs large easy to construct?)


    And the "best" reactor really depends on the user of said reactor. Some people are short on uranium and thus need a high eff one. Others are in need of lots of power and has lots of uranium.
    Some people are prone to make mistakes, is the reactor forgiving enough for those players (not a big loss if something pops) while others are masters at designing reactors and thus can easily spot a flaw before it's too late. In short, complexity level is a factor!


    And who gets to judge what design is "easier to remember"... That depends on how people choose to remember things. I remember symmetrical designs easy but my friend remembers chaotic designs easily.


    EDIT: My 1740 (-14 for cooling system = 1726) Effective EU CASUC is the best i have seen so far btw. Now i am just waiting for other people to make improvements since my design is "over the top".

    Without any mods ofc except IC2. I know everyone has their personal preferences but I dunno how to include all the opinions without making it very confusing. The 4 points i described should already give a pretty acurate picture of how good a reactor is (if i miss 1 feel free to post that). It will be up to the ppl themselves to decide if the reactor meets their needs.

    Quote from Rick

    In case 2 reactors have exactly the same specs i will look at what design is easier to remember (for instance symetrical designs are easier to remember).


    Not sure if memory is a good one to judge from, as everyone rembers stuff differently (as already mentioned), and how often to you setup the internals of your reactor?


    I think cost/amount of materials might be something to go on.


    Though not sure if you want to compare/rate all the designs, because it really depends on the user and their intended application of the reactor at the end of the day.

    Feel free to come with a better idea :).


    About the 4 points iam using to determine what are good reactors do i miss something? Does it need a extra spec?


    Iam going to use it in the best of the best reactors topic. I dont want that list to be based on opinions (which always change) but on numbers (which are always the same).

    If the designs share the exact same stats but one is slightly different then do it on a first come first serve basis? Otherwise you will have submissions coming in that say theirs is easier to design just because they designed it. And then people will start to argue needlessly.


    But like i pointed out earlier, making a scoring system based on Efficiency vs Cost vs Output (Effective or not) is only applicable to those who need one or more of those elements.
    Are you going to make one list for efficiency, another for cost, one for Active EU/t and yet another for effective EU/t?


    There is no "best" design, only improvements on designs aimed at certain needs.
    And you still haven't answered my previous question.
    Is it based on ONE reactor core or several? Because as you suggested in my thread that i should just build several cores and benefit from the resource gain. If that is the case then one could submit a good design off a single chamber that has zero relevance to the space requirements of said reactor. Which is something you should score on as well, the amount of water needed, amount of air needed and the expensiveness of the cabling. Obviously a 20 EU/t reactor is cheaper in cabling since you can use copper instead of gold. Or have to use a transformer to be able to use copper on a >32 EU reactor.

    It will be based for all reactors but no extra mods. So CASUC reactors (and SUC designs too because they just suck unless someone can proof they dont :)) wont be included.


    Space req/ease of use is a good point i will ad that to the list. Will be measured like this:
    -Space needed in blocks
    -1 big reactor doing exactly the same thing (same output cost eff etc) as 5 smaller reactors is easier to use thus better.
    -Cost in iron (else there wont be any 0 chamber reactors in the list)