[Suggestion] Nuclear Reactor Changes

1st Official Post

    I have come up with some changes to nuclear reactors which would make it more of a hassle to set up. Currently it is quite simple to set up a nuclear reactor in your wooden hut.


    1) Output Fluctuates
    Rather than having a steady output, nuclear reactors have an irregular output. I propose to accomplish this by applying a 90% success rate to uranium cell ticks, if a uranium cell does not tick successfully then the surrounding cells cannot tick with the failed cell on that tick. This way the bigger the nuclear reactor the bigger the fluctuation.


    2) Capacitor Array :Batpack: (Internal Reactor Component)
    Capacitive arrays will attempt to keep the nuclear reactor at a constant output. They will attempt to keep their charge at 50%. They can exchange EU at a rate of 5 eu/t. The more you place in the reactor the more energy can be exchanged per tick.


    3) Lapcap Array :Batpack: (Internal Reactor Component)
    The same as a Capacitor array but can exchange 25 eu/t.


    4) Lapanium
    Some people of the community have been asking for a long time for an alternate form of uranium, here is my idea for it. First you compress lapis, into lapis cell. Then you put it into a very hot reactor until it turns into a Lapanium cell. Lapanium cell produce the same amount of energy as uranium but twice the heat and last for a tenth of the time.


    I am open to suggestions for the recipes

    [ccolor=#00ff00][csize=36][cb][cu]WHO DISTURBS MY SLUMBER!!![/u][/b][/size][/color] << Seriously now? - Alb<< it took you this long to notice? I've been doing it for a while would you like me to reduce font size in the future? or use spoilers? - PL
    no! no! no! 1000 times no! here's why
    1. screw with how reactors work and all existing reactors explode!
    2. basically all the generators except the basic one are in a delicate balancing act. if you implement this then people will simply abandon nuclear power for geo-gens or wind energy.
    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtntTvuv8Aw

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

    Quote from passinglurker

    WHO DISTURBS MY SLUMBER!!!
    no! no! no! 1000 times no! here's why
    1. screw with how reactors work and all existing reactors explode!
    2. basically all the generators except the basic one are in a delicate balancing act. if you implement this then people will simply abandon nuclear power for geo-gens or wind energy.
    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtntTvuv8Aw

    Agreed.

    Haikus are poems

    They don't always make sense

    Potato

    Quote from passinglurker

    WHO DISTURBS MY SLUMBER!!!
    no! no! no! 1000 times no! here's why
    1. screw with how reactors work and all existing reactors explode!
    2. basically all the generators except the basic one are in a delicate balancing act. if you implement this then people will simply abandon nuclear power for geo-gens or wind energy.
    3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MtntTvuv8Aw


    1) The changes suggested decrease the amount of heat produced, as cells will misfire 10% of the time.
    2) Thats the whole point. Stop people setting up simple nuclear reactors.
    3) Cant be bothered to watch at this time of night. If its about the american scout who caused an environmental disaster in his own shed and the video is in response to my wooden hut quip I know all about it. Wasnt successful at containing it was he.

    Quote from PlyPencil

    1) The changes suggested decrease the amount of heat produced, as cells will misfire 10% of the time.
    2) Thats the whole point. Stop people setting up simple nuclear reactors.
    3) Cant be bothered to watch at this time of night

    @ #2 so you admit the whole point to your suggsetion is to screw over nuke users to give you an edge in smp :evil:

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

    Quote from PlyPencil

    1) The changes suggested decrease the amount of heat produced, as cells will misfire 10% of the time.
    2) Thats the whole point. Stop people setting up simple nuclear reactors.
    3) Cant be bothered to watch at this time of night. If its about the american scout who caused an environmental disaster in his own shed and the video is in response to my wooden hut quip I know all about it. Wasnt successful at containing it was he.

    1) Duh. Read #2.
    2) If they are in a delicate balancing act, how can nerfing generators help?
    3) I didn't watch it either

    Haikus are poems

    They don't always make sense

    Potato

    Quote from PlyPencil

    I dont play SMP primarily

    then why do you want this?
    the video is a bald guy shouting "TONY STARK BUILT THIS IN A CAVE!!!... WITH A BOX OF SCRAPS!!!!"

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

    Quote from passinglurker

    then why do you want this?


    Because you put down a nuclear reactor which is not difficult to build, you put in a uranium cells which are not hard to make, and you are set for energy for the rest of your minecraftian days.


    With this change you need to use MFE's as a EU buffering system which takes up space. Plus crafting the additional components will take up space in the reactor if you want a steady current if your reaching your cables limits, because remember if your EU fluctuates above your cable capacity BOOM your cable melts.

    Quote from PlyPencil

    Because you put down a nuclear reactor which is not difficult to build, you put in a uranium cells which are not hard to make, and you are set for energy for the rest of your minecraftian days.


    With this change you need to use MFE's as a EU buffering system which takes up space. Plus crafting the additional components will take up space in the reactor if you want a steady current if your reaching your cables limits, because remember if your EU fluctuates above your cable capacity BOOM your cable melts.

    Since when has it been difficult to build a MV- or LV-transformer? Your whole change would only change that you would need to build a transformer for each reactor and that reactors would be nerfed to generate about 50-90% of power that they generate now. Admit that you only want to nerf casucs!

    Quote from PlyPencil

    Because you put down a nuclear reactor which is not difficult to build, you put in a uranium cells which are not hard to make, and you are set for energy for the rest of your minecraftian days.


    With this change you need to use MFE's as a EU buffering system which takes up space. Plus crafting the additional components will take up space in the reactor if you want a steady current if your reaching your cables limits, because remember if your EU fluctuates above your cable capacity BOOM your cable melts.

    1st. ITS SSP! no one is forcing you to build a reactor.
    2nd. being "set for the rest of your minecraftian days" is BULL, your set for the next reactor cycle (about 2 hours) during that time the reactor will crank out a set amount of power at a set rate and if you don't have a place for it to go then its lost forever so even a simple 1cell reactor will need at least 2 mfe's to worth of storage to store it all
    3rd. the existing system already makes you use a mfsu (if your smart) to stop you from wasting power and then you need space consuming transformers to knock it back down to a voltage your machines can use with out exploding

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

    Quote from Rick

    imo nuclear reactors are the only generators that require maintenance AND can be used for mass energy production. Take that away and everything will be solar spam.

    the patron saint of nuclear scientists has arrived ^^ time to start serving up waffles :D

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

    • Official Post
    Quote from passinglurker

    the patron saint of nuclear scientists has arrived ^^ time to start serving up waffles :D

    Why isn't he in your List as "the patron saint of nukes"?


    And now to the topic. Even if our Lurker was a bit rough to you, i can only say that this will be denied, because it would mess up all current Designs and would also motivate Nuclearusers rather to spam Solars than using their now even more complicated Reactors, which probably exploded. Also Rick wouldnt be pleased, because he would have to reopen his Nucleardesignthread, due to this. And you dont want to make Rick angry, because he is the patron saint of nukes. Even i lost a Nuclear War against him, even if i survived it.

    Anyway I dont see what your complaining about, doing calculations, only when you have a reactor 800 eu/t + will you require an external transformer or MFE/MFSU to filter the power.


    Even if the power is fluctuating, it would never fluctuate in the positive range above the cable unlike what I said.......because the cells fail to tick, they dont double at any time so its impossible for it to, so thats a mistake on my part there.


    It basically adds a bit more depth to reactors, and it doesnt break anything.

    Quote from Alblaka

    It doesn't add depth, it's a plainout nerf of their output.
    Of course it's not realistic to have a Reactor with a perfect steady output. But Steve can carry Nuclear Reactors by hand, carrying a couple hundreds of them at once, realism != minecraft.


    Reactor will get some changes in future. Not these though.

    I second that :thumbup:

    Quote from Alblaka

    It doesn't add depth, it's a plainout nerf of their output.
    Of course it's not realistic to have a Reactor with a perfect steady output. But Steve can carry Nuclear Reactors by hand, carrying a couple hundreds of them at once, realism != minecraft.


    Reactor will get some changes in future. Not these though.

    nom, nom, nom, YAY WAFFLES! nom, nom, nom!


    MISSION COMPLETE! :thumbup:


    but on a more serious note i would like to highlight what alblaka said about adding depth. simply put i'm ok with what are technically nerfs when you balance them buffs and some immersive gameplay but remember all you nerfers lurking out there when you post a flat out nerf like this i will be there.

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"

    Quote from oisin100

    where are you quoting that from? cause its not in this thread and it would be very poor form to misquote some one to make it look like their suggesting a repeatedly denied suggestion. :evil:

    true balance is impossible in video games the best one can hope for is to make it really hard to guess which of 2 choices are better.
    and remember kids "NEVER UNDERESTIMATE THE POWER OF JOKES!"