Factorio Forums

Hello everyone,

first of all: The Reason: Nuclear power is cheep, almost endless and small and it has a huge energy output. In my opinion something's missing here, which would be the "unreliability" and risk of a nuclear reactor. So I thougt about a few improvements, trying to keep it simple and understandable for the average player.

I figured a good way of implementing risk would be an "overclocking-System". Because that is optional (you can still just build the normal layout, without risking anything) and gives enthusiasts the ability to prove their skills and being rewarded for it. The way this could be implemented is through modules exclusive for the nuclear reactor, for example one that improves the efficiency by causing the ractor to consume less fuel to the same energy output. Like the normal productivity module.
Another one could be increasing the raw output of energy maybe at the cost of using more fuel. But all modules each increase the heat cap for the reactor itself. So that it can potentially get up to 3000°C or something (which in itself would be good because the heat would just store the energy).
Now, what is balancing the whole thing is that above a certain temperature the reactor overheats and if you dont fix that soon enaugh and it heats up further it leads to an explosion of the reactor building (I'm thinking of an explosion as strong as the nuclear bomb). For example: You have your nuclear energy setup working at 100% but suddenly you consume less energy - meaning you dont use all the steam, leading to the reactor heating up and eventually get to the point to overheat if it doesn't cool down again. All that ONLY happends, if you have modules in your reactor - meaning your heat cap is above 1000°C. In order to balance setups which dont quite reach the "explosion temperature" the reactor could get less efficient if it tops the "overheat-temperature" maybe at about 1000°C. (consuming more fuel to the same output). The only way to keep that under control for the player is to either put fuel into the reactor only if steam is needed or simly using up all the steam it produces. At that point reactor data should be readable via wire network enabling the player to build a alert-system.

I had some ideas about increasing the danger of an overheated reactor building so that it wouldn't be too easy to shut it down again. For example that the reactor couldn't be mined while being overheated or causing damage to nearby players. And some other ideas, adding danger/risk for the player to the nuclear bomb as well. But I might make another post as soon as I have a more clear overview of what and how and why.

Sorry for some not so high-level English, i hope everything was still understandable

I like your idea, because :
- it's a player choice
- it's risk versus more power
- it's fun

To add a stone to your suggestion, over a temperature, we can imagine that a alarm "start" who said " nuclear reactor overload". shut the reactor by suppressing the fuel or it will explode soon. So people can react (or do some automatisation) to deal with the problem.

And if it explode... just built it again or load the last savegame.

fregate84 wrote:I like your idea, because :
- it's a player choice
- it's risk versus more power
- it's fun

To add a stone to your suggestion, over a temperature, we can imagine that a alarm "start" who said " nuclear reactor overload". shut the reactor by suppressing the fuel or it will explode soon. So people can react (or do some automatisation) to deal with the problem.

And if it explode... just built it again or load the last savegame.

First of all thank you for the reply and the positive feedback

I'd actually like people to build their alarm themselves, because someone who makes the decision to use these modules sure are able to connect it to an alarmsystem as well. Automated alarm would be nice too, though.

Secondly, I don't really believe that the explosion it that "ignorable". Because as I mentioned, it would have to be a big one, such as the nuclear bomb one. Meaning if you have a multiple-reactor setup to benefit from the neighbor bonus they're all gonna be destroyed together with the heat exchangers and turbines. All that should be expensive enough for you to actually care about your reactor to prevent an explosion.
Sure, you can always load an older savegame. But as the overheat-problem must have started quiete a while back if you already got to the point that an explosion occured, you'll have to load a save just as old and even then set the fixing of the reactor-area as your first priority. Even if you immediatly take the fuel out, it will still keep burning the last one. You're only solution to that would be mining the reactor building and therefor i previously posted, that it might just be a good idea to not allow mining of an overheated reactor. What I want to say, you can't just ignore overload on your "overclocked" nuclear reactor, even in lategame.

When I mentioned something about making the nuclear bomb dangerous for the player as well I ment something like the bomb causing the impact area and some around it to be contaminated for a few minutes or even more. If that would be added, the explosion of the reactor could be just the same, preventing you from immediatly rebuilding everything in case of a fail in the system.

The modules would have to be quiet strong though in order to make it interesting for the player and worth the risk. One Module could also increase the neighbour bonus, just to bring up another idea for the types of modules which could be added.

Yes,

you're right.
Since the first time devs mentioned the nuclear power i was expecting a someway similar behavior as you're suggesting.
Actually a nuclear chain design that was deeply integrated in the core concept of the gameplay, which is where mods not easily arrives.

I can't add anything more to your Ideas, they cover all the base concept of the "missing" we're having here:
Nuclear energy has pros & cons in real life, that should be relatively put in the game.

I'm a big fan of nuclear energy production, but we're missing negative effect particularly.
Uranium is radioactive. With not too much science, it should definitively be in the game too.

We're missing the concept of "choosing for nuclear". As it is now, in my opinion, it is an obvious choice, when you pass mid-game you certainly build up reactors.

I would immagine it like:
- cheaper recipes for nucelar components.
- no reactors temperature cap.
- reactor temperature resistence (with maybe techtree researchable bonus). Over it the reactors starts radioactive pollutioning. We can control temperature, by a pomp and som circuitry manipulation to balance the power we need.
- uranium radioactivness (this is the big one)

I immagine a game world, where i have to set up a train to bring radioactive u235 (lethal in inventory) to the nuclear plant. To reach my overproduction rocket boost, then, I don't give the right attention to my reactor and it meltsdown, causing radioactive pollution cloud (same as pollution but bright green, affecting players healtpoint according to its chunk value). I have to leave it there, untill it's temperature drops down, and the damage effects of the colud goes down as i can deconstruct it.

I would suggest, that such emergency situation should trigger all nearby alien bases to start huge, massive, simultaneous attacks, from all directions, on all Your buildings.

Why? Nuclear blast will be ignored by players - all they need to do is to build reactors outside of base, so all losses may be planned ahead, accounted, reduced, and quickly rebuilded with roboports...

But You can't really plan good defence against massive attack, while Your energy source is about to shut down, possibly rendering You laser turrets useless...

Actually I would say, it would be better if this is kept quite simple as Factorio still is a "easy to learn - hard to master" game. Personally I really like the way nuclear power was implemented into the game. I was extremely hyped when I saw the textures and how it was supposed to work (compared to a few mods I tried out before). But this has only held on to the moment I realized the reactor couldn't explode and no other risk has been added to nuclear energy.
But what I initially wanted to say, I'd leave radioactivity of uranium and such to mods (I don't know if that is implemented anywhere) in order to make it still available and fairly easy to understand for new players or people who just don't want to calculate through everythig (Kinda had to pull myself a bit back with my suggestions because of that, too).
While trying to brainstorm a bit I had the idea, that maybe, the buildings themselfes wouldn't be the biggest loss in case of a meltdown, but the modules I was talking about in my first post. That would make the whole concept of "overlocking" - how I like to call it - very expensive, though.
Personally I'm not that convinced that people will be able to ignore one of their reactor setups being destroyed having taken their souroundings with them. That might just be because I've never built a true megabase myself, but spent my time mostly in the midgame of several saves.
In terms of roboports...is it too much to make the explosion that huge, that it would even eradicate all the roboports in range for repair? I mean that would definently force people to build their nuclear energy setup far far away from their base and I don't know if that is a good thing. It would, however, let an explosion be taken more seriously by players even with a megabase behind their back.