Nuclear power OP

Place to discuss the game balance, recipes, health, enemies mining etc.

Is nuclear power good as is or overpowered?

Nuclear power is fine.
52
85%
Nuclear power is overpowered.
5
8%
Nuclear power is broken as hell.
4
7%
 
Total votes: 61

quyxkh
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by quyxkh » Tue Feb 19, 2019 2:06 pm

Selvek wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:13 pm
Which brings me to... logistic bots ARE broken and OP, because you shouldn't be able to have infinite bots delivering to the same chest at a time.
Nahhh, it's just too expensive to do the animation showing what's happening. There's actually dozens of coiled conduit pipes in the chests, like the conduit that carries the hot air out the back of your dryer, only the chests are even more sophisticated than the flying robots. When a robot's approaching one of chest's conduit tubes uncoils and opens its basket exactly where the robot's going to want to sling its delivery into the throat or pick it up from the tongue and be on its way. It's the most amazing thing, Elon Musk would just squeal. Sadly, showing that would take too much of our puny computers' horsepower and reveal technology from the future Wube can't publicly admit they have.

Hannu
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 569
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:27 am
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by Hannu » Wed Feb 20, 2019 8:55 am

Selvek wrote:
Mon Feb 18, 2019 10:13 pm
Which brings me to... logistic bots ARE broken and OP, because you shouldn't be able to have infinite bots delivering to the same chest at a time. It doesn't make sense physically. Belts should be the kings of high throughput at the expense of layout complexity, while bots should be geared towards lower throughput but much simpler layout. Simple fix - pickup or dropoff from a chest requires a short time delay, and only 1 bot can do it at a time.
I agree this. Logistic bots should be expensive method for very low volume logistic. To bring stuff for player, feed malls, construct things but certainly not suitable for transporting major resource flows of science production. But unfortunately most players have used to massive swarms of supereasy and lazily animated bots and like to build their megabases with them. Devs can not nerf bots anymore.

nafira
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by nafira » Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:40 pm

Bots are OP, that's not really debatable ... but it's also a bit of a fun-killer.
If you were only playing with bots, it would be boring as hell.

So when you play, and get fun, you play with the whole game : trains, chests, conveyors, etc.
But that's not the topic of this discussion right ?


The problem is proportion or U-235 AND the Kovarex process, which is at least 20 or 30 times too cheap.
Also they should reduce patch size (I found a 9.3M uranium patch not very far - around 1min by train). It should never exceed 1M.

Playing with time, electricity and materials costs should be able to do most of the job.
Also, recycling should not give U-238, or 1 for every 10 used cells (like if you have to scrub them to get some).

Nasabot
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 102
Joined: Fri Oct 30, 2015 11:16 am
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by Nasabot » Fri Feb 22, 2019 5:24 pm

Nuclear power is fine, but uranium is overabundant. (even more than stone?)
Recipes should be significantly more expansive.

User avatar
MoleOnDope
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 43
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2019 12:16 am
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by MoleOnDope » Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:30 pm

I also just completed the poll and I'm actually really surprised by the pretty clear outcome this far.

I'm part of the OP-faction, but I feel like I should elaborate:

I love setting up nuclear power, coming up with new, more efficient, more compact builds is maybe even a core component of my games :lol:
I'm not bothered with how extremely powerful these setups can get, it's nuclear freakin' power after all!
It's more that I can never imagine running out of ore even on my first patch, ever. I feel like the continous power generation disregarding the actual electricity demand was meant to require the player to leave about one centrifuge per core running continously, but unfortunately the game is also a perfect teaching play of cybernetics so my reactor only runs a cycle when it has to :lol:

In conclusion: Fewer/Smaller Ore patches and/or more expensive refining would be justified in my opinion, I don't care that much either though.

quyxkh
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 684
Joined: Sun May 08, 2016 9:01 am
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by quyxkh » Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:36 pm

I think making uranium rare enough you have to hunt for it would just be repeating a theme. I remember when it was oil you were always exploring for, now it's less predictable what you're looking for if anything, the problem's setting up and maybe defending the transport not finding it at all. I kinda liked the endless search for oil, it tied in with the alien-artifact-genocide imperative and gave the game a more desperate, gritty feel, but it's a flavor/feel thing, does it seem to anyone that prospecting for resources is any kind of core Factorio experience?

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by BlueTemplar » Sat Feb 23, 2019 7:53 pm

It's a feature of the game I enjoy a lot, but sadly in 0.16 had to use RSO because resources were still too plentiful at their lowest setting.

As you can imagine, i'm very happy about what 0.17 will bring !

User avatar
bobingabout
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 6350
Joined: Fri May 09, 2014 1:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by bobingabout » Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:45 pm

nafira wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:40 pm
Bots are OP, that's not really debatable ... but it's also a bit of a fun-killer.
If you were only playing with bots, it would be boring as hell.
I was watching someone playing on youtube recently, and they were struggling with trains. then they got bots, and they loved bots.
Creator of Bob's mods. Expanding your gameplay since version 0.9.8.

nafira
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by nafira » Mon Feb 25, 2019 6:55 pm

bobingabout wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:45 pm
nafira wrote:
Thu Feb 21, 2019 7:40 pm
Bots are OP, that's not really debatable ... but it's also a bit of a fun-killer.
If you were only playing with bots, it would be boring as hell.
I was watching someone playing on youtube recently, and they were struggling with trains. then they got bots, and they loved bots.
Yeah sure, but I'm practically sure also that they didn't remove all belts and trains from their games ? I always (and many people here) have around 10k bots to move quickly some storage or having things delivered to you.
Your intervention is just ... misplaced and useless.

As said before, this is a discussion about nuclear technology, no bots nor modules. Thanks, bye, try to lecture people somewhere else.

User avatar
Light
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 557
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by Light » Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:25 pm

The poll is flawed for me because it encompasses nuclear power as a whole. If it had an option which said: "Kovarex is OP but nuclear power itself isn't" then that would get my vote for sure. Creating unlimited power with practically no need for ore patches after Kovarex is achieved is rather absurd.

Simply removing that recipe made sustaining the megabase which eats uranium like candy into a new beast, but I also use mods to further expand uranium processing so more ore is required than usual to obtain fuel. Even still, that one recipe negates the core gameplay mechanic of having to expand for resources by permitting you to be almost entirely self-sufficient, which real world uranium processing could only dream of doing. (I'd like that too, as our electrical bills would be very low.)

Since mods handle the issue already, I have nothing more to add. I just wanted to note that the poll needed more specific choices to permit a better idea of what people truly have a problem with, rather than the broad-brush approach which skews the results. Not everyone is willing to post their opinions after all.

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 697
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by BlueTemplar » Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:00 pm

Yeah, polls should always have "None of the above" as an option...

nafira
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 31
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Nuclear power OP

Post by nafira » Mon Feb 25, 2019 8:54 pm

Light wrote:
Mon Feb 25, 2019 7:25 pm
The poll is flawed for me because it encompasses nuclear power as a whole. If it had an option which said: "Kovarex is OP but nuclear power itself isn't" then that would get my vote for sure. Creating unlimited power with practically no need for ore patches after Kovarex is achieved is rather absurd.
I agree, nuclear power is not OP by design, but because running it at a huge scale doesn't cost much and have nearly no loss.
I voted the first one in that matter, but if your correction was put up, I would change it in less than a heartbeat.

Post Reply

Return to “Balancing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests