Factorio Forums

There should be SOME sort of meltdown or disadvantage/inefficiency towards improper management.

My suggestion would be that a nuclear reactor 'melting down' doesn't destroy anything, but instead goes like this:

1. Nuclear plants have TONS of health. Very slow to disassemble/destroy. (60-120 seconds?)
2. While a nuclear plant is 'melting down' (60-120 seconds?) it produces no power, and LOTS of pollution.
3. When a nuclear plant melts down, all biter rally points are triggered to attack.


That way you're not dealing with destroying buildings or any new mechanics or anything. What you end up with is a large loss of power coinciding with a massive biter attack, so your defenses will be strained, and if the biters make it through they'll make a B-line for the nuclear plant, potentially destroying it.

That seems like a fair consequence that doesn't require any significant new game mechanics, and can be guarded against in a number of ways while still presenting a challenge and a negative consequence best avoided.

Ranakastrasz wrote:No no, I meant the Fuel rod and Uranium icons for the items.

Ok, those look identical.

Sad to see the complexity go down, I was looking forward to it...


Does that productivity research have the same ROI for every level? Or is it like 2% more expensive off base every level to account for the increased ore or something?

Why can't the extra complexity not just be an extra tier? I mean, from what I understood the cycled water was unessesary, and you could consume all the waterSteam by sending it through both types of steam engine in a row, resulting in no water left over.

Ranakastrasz wrote:Productvity research. I hope that is applicable to anything, not just mining drills.

Increased efficiency for oil pumps would be nice.

I was so looking forward to the reactors braking the regular chain in Factorio "If no one needs it, production stops." In reality a nuclear reactor, once started, cannot be stopped. I would have liked to see something like that in Factorio as well.

I still do not see why there are so many comments wanting a meltdown mechanic? Meltdowns are extremely rare events in the real world and all of them have happened because of poor design choices or extreme natural disasters.

Nuclear is safe and straight forward. The solution they have now is basically how nuclear works today.

From a gameplay perspective I wonder where nuclear will fit in though. As others have said, solar+accumulators will fill all your power needs really. The only way I see it having a purpose would be if there would be more realistic ratios between the different types of power generators (like in real life):
* Solar only producing maximum for 10 % of the day. Accumulators being 25 % efficient (loss of 50 % to charge and then loss of another 50 % of that on discharge).
* Coal requiring 10-100 times more resources per unit of power and if radition pollution gets added the coal ash should be highly radioactive, could even add a step to remove all the uranium from the coal ash for use in nuclear power.
* Nuclear being compact, high power, low pollution, low fuel use, end game power that is an accomplishment to reach. Could even do breeder reactors that will use up 99 % of the mined uranium as well (them being an easier technology than boiling water reactors).

JJosh wrote:I felt like this was an end game solution to power production, but it doesn't really feel like too much more than "Steam MK2, where you burn coal MK2" at this point. I'm still happy for the alternative to a sea of solar panels, but this is a bit of a letdown, in my opinion.

I am also very interested in how nuclear power will be balanced against solar power late-game. I understand that this is a power solution to surpass steam power, but solar power is currently very powerful. By that I mean, solar power is basically free when you get the ratio with accumulators correct, and you can easily add more when you need more power without considering any external resources (provided your factory is manufacturing the goods).

I think that nuclear's dependence on a natural resource (uranium) makes the power only as available as the natural resource, whereas solar power only depends on land (real-estate) to expand, of which the latter is much cheaper. Solar power is basically free, but nuclear power isn't, so solar is arguably better.

My question is, what will nuclear power provide me that makes it superior to solar power? Why would I choose to use nuclear power instead of an endless sea of solar panels and accumulators?

cybersteel8 wrote:My question is, what will nuclear power provide me that makes it superior to solar power? Why would I choose to use nuclear power instead of an endless sea of solar panels and accumulators?

The reduced footprint makes very little difference in a world without biters. With them enabled, however, nuclear shrinks defensive perimeters and pollution output, addressing the weaknesses of solar and steam respectively.

Commander Gizmo wrote:The suggested concept only offers a new way to generate heat, but does nothing to minimize the massive space needed to build hundreds of the current 'steam engine' to make power. It also offers very little in the idea of complexity at all. The fact that you need to figure out the most efficient use of space to attach enough 'boilers' to the reactors is at most a one time issue. Once you blueprint the most efficient layout you're done. Without a severe penalty for a poor design (meltdown isn't the only one, even in real life) to balance against, it really isn't much of a challenge.

I see similar issues. Currently it seems to be "just a puzzle". On the other hand: when I look at how simple the logistic bots where in the beginning and how it is yet I would say: calm down, it is simple to add more complexity at any time.
See below.

I also agree that the boilers are misnamed. In real life they are called Steam Generators, and they take the hot reactor coolant and use it in a set of heat exchangers to boil non-contaminated water into steam. That steam is then run through a Turbine, which is a very large, very long, and somewhat dangerous device that converts the steam energy into rotational force to spin a generator.

Well... names. The name is currently a line in one of the translation files. It is super simple to change it. But does this make the game-play better?
It's much more important, that everyone uses the same name, when talking about a subject like Factorio...

Here's a few suggestions for possible penalties for not regulating the rers properly:

• 1) Meltdown - obvious option
  2) Emergency Shutdown - In the future, reactors have control systems that just shut them down if the risk is too high. You have to wait for the heat to fully dissipate and a safety delay to expire. This means your reactor is down for an extended period and not generating power.
  3) Pollution Release - If the reactor isn't running efficiently (maybe heat is over threshold) it starts outputting a much, much higher level of pollution per minute. This would have to be enough to alter the evolution rate of the biters to be a real penalty.
  4) Efficiency - Your fuel usage rate per MJ is based on the temperature being in a nominal range. Too low or too high will still work, but you'll need a lot more ore and a much larger refinement facility to keep up. Players can still use nuclear without building a combinator control system, but it is highly encouraged to get the most out of your reactor.
  5) Byproducts - Your reactor has a chance to produce certain useful byproducts, but only at certain temperature ranges. Thus, you can produce the product you want by changing the temperature that you run your reactor at.

Seriously, I really encourage the devs to take a look at the Reactor and Nuclear mods for some ideas on what we, the players, have found as a starting balance for reactors.

I like this list very much, that pulls together many ideas and suggestions from many other discussions. This list is a good pool of ideas to increase the complexity of the nuclear power if really needed. See above.

IronCartographer wrote:

cybersteel8 wrote:My question is, what will nuclear power provide me that makes it superior to solar power? Why would I choose to use nuclear power instead of an endless sea of solar panels and accumulators?

The reduced footprint makes very little difference in a world without biters. With them enabled, however, nuclear shrinks defensive perimeters and pollution output, addressing the weaknesses of solar and steam respectively.

I disagree that biters are a threat in the point of the game in which we're supposed to be considering nuclear power. It's a late-game solution to power, where we've already powered up our personal defense and can steamroll biters in the blink of an eye.

You see, solar power doesn't attract me as a clean power source, but rather as a simple set-and-forget system. Once I place my solar panels and accumulators, I don't have to worry about them. If i need more space, I'll go kill more biters and expand my walls as far as I like. I guess this leads to a discussion about biter/combat balance, but if physical space is the only consideration when it comes to deciding to use nuclear power, it seems like a small advantage compared to the responsibility of maintaining a uranium supply.

Has nobody else noticed that you need almost 3 million ore to get a return on this mining productivity research? Per level? You won't see a return on level 10 mining productivity until you mine 30 million ore after completing the research. And that's not even considering the 5,100 Petroleum per level either, and assuming the research applies multiplicatively with itself rather than additively to the base, which I'm not convinced is what the FFF was saying.

I can't wait for nuclear power. The part I dislike most about factorio right now is having to build endless solar fields.
Have you considered releasing stuff like this as mods instead, and then integrate it into the main game later, once it's done?

Mega base builders sometimes complain about how boring it is to stamp down blueprints for a bazillion solar panels. Nuclear power could help a lot there. I'm hoping it as 1%-10% if the physical footprint.

Can uranium ore generated in the undiscovered areas of the map? Or it is necessary to start a new game?

Was it already suggested to turn the discarded "advanced" reactors into some next-level research, like advanced oil processing goes after basic oil processing? Probably add in some later release, and force reactors require reconfiguring (or maybe even replacing) to make use of the new tech. Seems like everybody would be happy this way.

Deadly-Bagel wrote:Has nobody else noticed that you need almost 3 million ore to get a return on this mining productivity research? Per level? You won't see a return on level 10 mining productivity until you mine 30 million ore after completing the research. And that's not even considering the 5,100 Petroleum per level either, and assuming the research applies multiplicatively with itself rather than additively to the base, which I'm not convinced is what the FFF was saying.

The bonus is applied additively, after 10 researches you will have +20% productivity on all mining machines, including pumpjacks, after 50, thats +100%

The mining speed research should be at least 10% per level then... no other bonus in the game has so low (basically irrelevant) returns.

Any news about loader and graphics for them?

SHiRKiT wrote:

Eitelkeit wrote:Well, i really liked the nuclear mechanics described in previous FFF. Now it looks quite simplistic and doesn't sound like that much of a fun. Heat pipes by themselves, without even meltdown or any kind of risk aren't satisfying at all

Meltdowns makes anything NOT FUN at all. Huge complex jumps are not good. If they want to add more complex stuff, they could be in a way that it's incremental.

They make your efforts more rewarding. Looking at this from your point of view:
- Why bother making reactors? Solar panels don't need to be fuelled and you can spam them and they will handle everything.

For me this game is a "puzzle". The more effective you want to be, the more creative you got to be.

It will be next tedious task (like making mining outposts every while). To just go and create more uranium mines and get more uranium... One will just have to spam nuclear reactors without thought and make more and more and more. No hazard = no challenge = no fun.

Of course, if someone likes mindlessly just build more and more. Then no different from making array of solar panels.

PS: "For this is a game about automation". And this system will be just like starting coal fuelled power plants. Just efficiency will be different, rest is same tedious task. of building more... or even not more as it will give more power...

PS2: Mods = no achievements...

Summarizing: Concept of having people to automate more to get more rewarding power is cool. But that's just my opinion. I tend to leave factories when everything is starting to become tedious work because everything s already set up and becomes: "Just build more mines game".

So, by me, concept being able to reduce resource drainage by automation is super cool as it adds challenge to game. Lemmings who like to build mines can play their own way and do exploring. For me problem is that I have to play like everyone else ATM (meaning: gathering more and more resources instead of getting factory more automated and being able to save resources by automation and technology).

Game as it is now (at last how I feel it is):
Gather resources > Use them > Search for more resources > Gather > Use them > Search for more resources > Gather > Use them .... > Search for more resources > Gather > Use them

With meltdown mechanics and more rewarding gameplay one could alternate it to:
Gather resources > Use them > Search for more resources > Gather > Use them > Optimize production processes/efficiency > Reduce resources need > Search for less resources
That would make game more demanding, but only OPTIONALLY