Welcome to Keen Software House Forums! Log in or Sign up to interact with the KSH community.
  1. You are currently browsing our forum as a guest. Create your own forum account to access all forum functionality.

Is the Reactor balanced?

Discussion in 'General' started by SirConnery, May 18, 2019.

  1. SirConnery Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    129
    Is the Reactor output balanced by the need to harvest Uranium or is it too much power for too little effort?

    My opinion is that the Reactor output itself is fine. But it should come with some "technical" downsides. You already need to provide it with Uranium yes, and that is a logistical challenge. But with Solar, Wind, and Hydrogen generation you have much bigger obstacles to keep producing large amounts of consistent power.

    Other power sources have definite downsides for their output.

    Solar
    - Takes a huge amount of space
    - Not so amazing on planets (with day cycles)

    Wind

    - Only on stations
    - Only on planets with atmosphere

    Hydrogen

    - Burns through Ice ridicilously fast
    - Needs to be kickstarted to even work


    What can we possibly come up with to balance out Reactor, or is it fine as it is?
     
  2. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,137
    It should periodically meltdown into a smoking pile of slag, contaminating the entire world and ending life as we know it.

    OK...seriously...fabrication of a reactor should require some rarer materials such as gold and/or platinum and maybe even unobtainium. All reactors, even the smallest ones, should require superconductor components. It shouldn't be so easy to build one.
     
  3. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,458
    The reactor as it is now, is far more balanced than it used to be.
    I agree for building one it should require a few more "rare" materials.
     
  4. SirConnery Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    129
    I agree on the initial cost increase.
    But I'm more interested in ways we could keep the great power gains, while bringing some downsides to it.

    How about having the reactor instead consume "Uranium Rods", an item that can be produced with combining refined Uranium and Platinium Ingots. Platinium requirements would be low, but it would up the logistical requirements of using the reactor a bit.

    This could just be an addition as well. Have refined uranium give reactor half the power it gives now, while "Uranium Rods" give the same power as now.
     
    • Like Like x 2
  5. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,137
    We need zirconium for the fuel pins. I just won't accept it any other way.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  6. domingo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    32
    Heat.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  7. Mollymawk Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    77
    reactors could use Ice at the very least. they could need multiple other modules to work. reactor, cooling system, steam turbines..

    P.s.

    and with progression why do i have to make a reactor before making a warhead, its not a nuclear warhead
     
    Last edited: May 20, 2019
  8. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    258
    Honestly I think they're fine where they're at, but I'm open to ideas that would add meaningful decisions and reasons for a technical downside. The reactors are meant to be the most potent singular power source we have access to in the vanilla game and the bid bads of power generation, simply because of how they generate their power. Not everything needs to have a super-massive downside and reactors already have drawbacks of their own without other changes. They're very expensive in terms of resources needed to produce them, especially in bulk. In order to even get them running you have to find uranium, which isn't exactly the most abundant element in game. You also have to refine that fuel before it can even be used. Assuming you had the perfect storm of circumstances on your starting planet that let you produce several reactors, they're still going to be dead weight to you until you find some uranium to power them, which you can only obtain in space. Even if you start in space you still have to find an asteroid or cluster of them that has enough uranium to do what you need to do. Their drawbacks aren't as technical as the ones with a solar panel or hydrogen engine, but they will require more effort in the long run to keep operable.

    Too many downsides to something or improperly balanced values and they become impractical to use. Not everything needs to have a super massive technical downside in game. Solar Panels, wind turbines and batteries are easy enough to renew, ice is extremely abundant to keep a hydrogen engine running, but uranium is in much shorter supply and ONLY uranium will fuel a reactor. This guarantees you will always be searching for more sources of fuel.

    If reactors were changed to include some type of downside, such as heat mentioned in the other thread, there needs to be more to said downside than simply "slap this on to keep it from shutting down or exploding." Stuff like that doesn't add very interesting gameplay in my opinion and is more annoying than anything. It could be as simple as what I stated in the other thread. Assuming the downside is heat, then do a tiered system sort of thing. If there is more than enough cooling on the grid, the reactor is slightly more efficient than normal, say 5% more efficient. If the cooling is only adequate then it runs at the standard efficiency we have now. If the reactor is running hot it suffers a maximum penalty of say 10% efficiency. If it outright overheats then it shuts down. Thus you still have a potential downside for not keeping it cool, and further motivation to build around that downside than simply "slap this on and forget it."
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  9. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,137
    That's a great question!
     
  10. Morloc Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    252
    "Reactors going critical!" is a pretty common theme in the scifi world. Allow them to function at up to 175% output, but build an Overload condition when doing so. Imagine the fun warning klaxons going off!

    At any point from 85-120% Overload your reactor might detonate causing massive destruction. A damaged reactor would be much more susceptible to Overload and with sufficient damage (> 50%) might enter the Overload state under normal power output. A damaged reactor heading for Overload could be shut down manually at the reactor, but well...you'd need to be close ;)

    OK, what was I thinking? What we really need are new wheel textures.


    -Morloc
     
  11. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,632
    Reactors need to consume uranium faster imho. Once you've found a chunky vein of uranium, no other power source makes much sense.
     
  12. SirConnery Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    129
    Hmm... How much faster? Just for the sake of it, let's say it consumes 2x the uranium. Would this in itself be enough to have to constantly establish new uranium mining zones? That would create a logistical problem at least.
     
  13. domingo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    32
    With current technologies, we produce around 2400MW per 1kg of uranium.
    1MW per kg in SE is quite ... underwhelming. Though I understand that it is needed in a game.

    However the investment to be able to produce electricity in is quite high ... much much higher than in SE.


    So I think it should be the other way around. The veins shouldn't be that big so you are set for life.
    Or there should be no veins at all but you can get Uranium as trace element somewhere.
     
  14. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    258
    They did find a giant space diamond not too long ago that's bigger than our planet just about it, so it's not unreasonable to assume that perhaps similar veins of uranium could be found, or a giant asteroid field of nothing but uranium asteroids :p.

    In seriousness though smaller veins would be the best bet if one wanted to go that route. I would also say that would be a great time to revamp meteor storms to have a purpose other than being simply a periodic wrecking ball just annoy people and piss them off. Have some of the meteors occasionally leave behind a meteorite of uranium along with some other trace elements. At least then folks might turn meteor storms on from time to time. Would also make for some interesting situations if enough meteorites impacted near 2 rival factions.
     
    • Late Late x 1
  15. dispair Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    241
    Well maybe it depends on the context of how you play. Play on a keen server in multiplayer and see if reactors are balanced.

    In solo play I use solar and batteries; I don't bother with reactors. In space it's easier. Anyways, I like reactors the way they are.
     
  16. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,137
    In space, no one can here me dream...

    Survival in space is the easiest of easy. Power is readily available if you have cargo ships enabled, and even more so if drones are enabled (don't be like me and forget to activate in-game scripts or they just sit there looking dumb and all). You can harvest reactors and uranium ingots in large quantities, not to mention thruster components and everything else. Yeah, space is easy. Planets? No so much unless you have a survival kit...then easy-peasy.
     
  17. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,721
    What does "balanced" mean in a sandbox game?

    In gaming, "balanced" usually means there's no weapon or combination of weapons that works better than any other weapon or combination of weapons. An OP weapon gets used by everyone and all other weapons become useless. Halo 3 Battle Rifle comes to mind...

    So, what kind of threat does the standard SE reactor pose? Does it produce so much power you only need one? Is the fuel easily obtainable? Is the goal of the game to acquire a reactor so that you can dominate?

    Or, are we comparing all the power blocks to each other?

    Or, can anyone find two bad things to say about reactors?

    These power sources are not in competition. They are simply alternatives. One is not superior to any other (well, the Hydrogen Generator shouldn't be in the list since it needs to be kickstarted like a battery. Otherwise, batteries would have to be in the list). Reactors are not always the best choice. Thing about wind and solar is that they are not inherently dangerous. In that regard, SE reactors might be a bit... too convenient? The thing about nuclear power has always been the risk. You can get a lot of power out of a single powerplant for a long time, but if there's a... problem... you might not be able to get far enough away. All other damaged powerplants simply stop working. The "balancing" factor for power production in SE, in my opinion, should be risk. Using reactors should be risky.
     
  18. domingo Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    32
    IIRC star fusion ends at Iron (Fe). It has atomic number 26. Diamond / Carbon has only 6. Those elements are quite abundant.
    All elements with higher atomic number are produced at supernova explosions, and are much more rare.
    Uranium has atomic number 92 ...

    Back to the game: the Uranium from meteorites would be nice ... however meteor storms must be revamped also in other aspects - craters mark where players are located. And they are clearly visible from orbit.
     
  19. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    258
    No one single block on its own is a threat and typically requires some form of interaction with other blocks to function. The exception to that rule being warheads, but they're a different can of worms. It's when the blocks are combined into various forms that they become dangerous. Using your analogy of weapons for a moment, ideally certain weapons may offer advantages in one particular instance or another but no one singular weapon is a set in stone winner take all. If one is engaging a foe at medium range, then an assault rifle, light machine gun, or sniper would potentially good choices. If you're engaging in close quarters then perhaps a shotgun, sub-machine gun, or even pistol or melee weapon would be the better choices. Although the other weapon types could be used in the reverse of each situation, they would be at a disadvantage. In terms of damage I would argue that as long as they're within 5% of each other then I would consider that balanced. However that's getting into territory that is best saved for another day and is another can of worms in its own right, but you get where I'm going I'm sure.

    As to how this relates to power sources, unless one is doing a tiered system of sorts, no one single power source should be the winner take all set in stone best. I wouldn't say reactors let you dominate, but assuming you have you have the resources to build each type of power source, they are the better choice in situations demanding high amounts of power. There are a few examples of this below.

    1: Being in a situation that requires a large sustained amount of power
    2: Situations where large amounts of power are needed quickly and batteries are unavailable or couldn't be replenished easily.
    3: Situations where space is tight but power demands are high
    4: situations where light for solar panels or fuel for the hydrogen engine are scarce

    Of these situations reactors give you the best bang for your buck in terms of single power generation units. A single reactor will typically provide you far more power than any singular version of the other power blocks and can sustain this amount of power as long as they have fuel. I don't think that much was ever in question. However simply because they can provide more power per single unit, does not automatically make them the best thing to use. Assuming the goal is pure power generation and you have enough resources to build any of the power sources, with no other outside factors at play to influence the choice, such as imminent danger of attack, then I would argue that one would do better with solar panels and a few batteries, or wind turbines and batteries than a reactor. As far as giving one an edge goes, if one knows what they're doing and plays their cards right, they can smoke an entire base fairly easily enough with just a basic set of charged batteries on board. I've seen it happen and have done it myself, as I'm sure you've probably done at least once as well.

    Of course we both know this stuff, and this gets what I feel are some basic obligatory points out of the way.

    Continuing slightly with what I was getting at above, although reactors do provide some nice benefits, they also do come with some inherent drawbacks. To answer the question you posed above in regards to "can anyone find two bad things to say about reactors", I can think of several things actually.

    1: They cost more resources to produce than the other power sources: Reactors take alot more up front investment in terms of resources to build them and get them running. Several of those resources are a bit harder to find. Not impossible but not as common either. They require the most up front investment but again give the most bang for your buck in terms of singular block investment.

    2: They require constant fuel to keep operable:
    In order to keep a reactor running you must have a steady supply of uranium fuel to keep them rolling. Solar Panels, and Wind Turbines don't have this requirement in the traditional sense. Solar Panels simply need the light of the sun and unless you're in a bad position, that's a guaranteed thing you will have access to during the day. At night when light of the sun isn't available, batteries can take over. Wind Turbines simply need an atmosphere to keep running and unless you're in space or the atmosphere is stupidly thin, you will have that power from them. Like Solar Panels they can be paired with batteries to cheese a bit of extra power when needed. The hydrogen engine also needs fuel but doesn't need nearly as much of it usually as the reactors will need, and ice fuel is in much much greater supply.

    3: Uranium can only be found in space:
    Assuming a standard survival world and no uranium has been spawned in, you can't get the stuff planetside. This means that you are going to be limited to Solar Panels, Turbines, Hydrogen Engine, and Batteries to get you into orbit and out in space. With uranium only being able to be found in space you have to first get to space before you can even use it. Until then your reactors are just dead weight.
    3b: potential contact with enemy npcs/factions and getting stranded in space: Since you have to forage for uranium this means you will be constantly on the move if you want to keep it rolling, or at least won't be able to stay in the same place for too long of a time period. This opens up the possibility of potentially getting jumped by an enemy faction or running into an enemy npc object. Although this could be a danger at any in space, the danger is heightened by the fact that you're openly searching and foraging beyond your usual territory. The danger about doing this in space is that you could in fact get stranded in space guaranteeing you're dead. At least on a planet you have a much greater chance at survival.
    3c: uranium must be mined: Assuming you've found uranium, you must now mine the stuff and haul it back to your base. Depending on how far out you had to go in order to find it, this could be a very difficult process. This also will mean most likely bringing a specialized mining craft out there to mine the stuff and haul it back. Very well worth it if you can get it back but still takes up inventory and is a laborious process to obtain.

    4: uranium needs to be refined before it can be used: In order to use the uranium you pick up you must also refine that uranium, which takes a fair amount of time to do it and also energy. Of course the potential payoff for refining that fuel and using it is a massive return, it's still something that must be taken into account. While you're cranking away at refining that fuel uranium, this means your refining blocks will be tied up and can't be used for other tasks. Once you've constructed your batteries, your solar panels, and your wind turbines, you don't even need inventory to store fuel for them as they need no fuel. Hydrogen engines are the exception to not needing fuel as they will occasionally need to be refilled, however they don't require that the ice they consume go through an extra refinement step before they can use it. Reactors however do.

    5: destruction of reactor results in massive power loss and investment: One could argue this as a point of section one but I believe they are comparing 2 different sides so they would qualify as 2 separate points. With that said, you might not feel losing one or two solar panels, wind turbines, batteries, or hydrogen engines, but you'll definitely feel that reactor when it goes offline from getting nuked. It's typically much much easier to replace a solar panel, wind turbine, battery, or engine when they get nuked as their resources are much easier to obtain. The reactors not so much. Losing the reactor means you'll probably lose the uranium as well.

    I could keep rolling but I think you get the point. While the reactors may not have super massive downsides technologically, they're not without their own demands and risks. While the downsides of the other power sources is more technological, the reactor's is much more in the support it needs and inherent dangers involved in foraging for fuel. I get the idea of wanting a more involved reactor, but not every block needs a massive technological downside. So far I don't see how it would become anything other than a "place these coolers and forget it" type of feature without some type of benefit to keeping the blocks cool, other than them not shutting off or exploding in your face. That just doesn't scream meaningful gameplay to me.
     
  20. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,137
    I'm going to disagree with you a bit with these two assertions. The three moons, with their low gravity, offer some interesting advantages over other planets and space. I've found that a captured SPRT vessel such as a mining carriage, mining transport, and/or mining hauler, after converting everything on the vessel except the antenna to my ownership, can be landed intact on the moons. I'll plop one of those puppies down near my base and watch a free assailant or incisor drone (and sometimes an exterminator drone), depending on the type of captured vessel, spawn each time I approach the landed vessel, usually within 3 or 4 km of my base. Trapped in the moon's gravity well, they usually set down gently and the drone's components, small reactor, and uranium ingots may be harvested at my leisure (watching out for the active guns, of course. You get 1 small reactor and 20 kg of uranium ingots from an assailant drone, 4 small reactors and 40 kg of uranium ingots from an incisor drone, and 1 large reactor and 50 kg of uranium (I can't remember for sure; it could be less) from an exterminator drone. And parts galore! It's like growing parts for free!! That's one strategy for getting free uranium without the pesky need to find, mine, and refine it.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  21. mojomann71 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,458
  22. Spaceman Spiff Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    1,137
    Hey, it works wonderfully! I should patent it... :tu:
     
  23. Ronin1973 Master Engineer

    Messages:
    4,632
    I'd rather see the size of veins kept the same but the refined amounts of uranium to be considerably less. The appeal of reactors should be the size versus energy output. However, the cost of refining uranium should be a lot higher. If reactors were a premium power source that made sense when you need a lot of power, quickly, with low net mass, that would balance reactors nicely. Grids that fly would benefit from using reactors. But the player would be encouraged to conserve uranium rather than dump a huge load of uranium ore into a grid with an advanced refinery and practically never worry about energy production again.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  24. Oskar1101 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    216
    But meteors always leave trace amount of ore... Even uranium and platinum on earth..
    Also I think there is much higher chance to find uranium on meteor crater than on asteroid in space.
     
    Last edited: May 22, 2019 at 21:52
  25. Stardriver907 Senior Engineer

    Messages:
    2,721
    I'm not going to dispute any of this, but does it answer the OP's question:
    He asserts that reactors can be had for little effort and their only drawback is that uranium is allegedly hard to find.

    I suggested that reactors should be risky to use, but I didn't suggest it for purposes of "balance". I suggested it as an immersion feature. Something that will cause you to think a minute about using such a powerful block. It would be adding a realistic element to the game, but it would not alter the "balance", because there isn't any.

    "Balance" is something that must be maintained in a game that keeps score. In order to keep things fair, no individual or team can be allowed to have an advantage of any kind. The determining factor in every match must be player skill. If using reactors always leads to victory then reactors are OP.

    Except, they don't. They're just a block that you can choose to use if it will suit your needs. One thing that is certain about SE is that no two people play it the same way. What you may see as a disadvantage, I might see a path to victory, if indeed victory was my goal. In fact, victory is in the mind of the player. My definition of victory is when something I build actually works :woot:

    I believe reactors were supposed to be something that you would only be able to make (in survival) after you have struggled for many hours. I don't play in survival mode so I don't know if that is true, but I have watched people play on Twitch and it seems to me that even the noobest player can get a working reactor going one way or another in a couple hours or so of continuous play time. Indeed, the limiting factor seems to be finding uranium (which, by the way, does exist on planets). All I can say about that is that the prospecting skills of the average player could use some work. A lot of veteran players want the old days when Keen used to put a big "Ore Here" sign over every deposit.

    As high as the standard reactor's power density is, it's not enough. When you want to go big you either need to use a lot of standard reactors or you use modded reactors. I don't use standard reactors. Anything that I build that does not require a giant modded reactor gets batteries instead. That's just a blanket design constraint that I adhere to for my own reasons and so far it works for me. Some of the larger reactors use hydrogen as fuel and ice is much easier to find. If you are playing a pure-vanilla game you should be aware that Keen still doesn't believe anyone should make a ship bigger than Big Red or Big Blue, and doing so will require a lot of reactors, thrusters and gyros, all resource intensive.

    So, I guess every player has to ask themselves if the reactors they are contemplating are going to be worth the effort. Every player will have their own answer.
     
  26. SirConnery Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    129
    Well, balancing things (thruster power vs mass, how much something costs/uses power etc.) is part of the core gameplay design. It's not just to balance pvp gameplay.

    If one totally nerfed the reactor to produce a max 10kw/s with twice the uranium usage, I don't think you would be saying it's just an alternate power source and it's up to you if you wish to use it when clearly everything else was just better to produce power with.

    I mean, would you be fine if you could just lift any ship no matter how big with a small ion thruster, because it's just a sandbox game and it doesn't need "balance" ? There would be no incentive to build more thrusters, even though you still could. It's a sandbox game right so it's fine?

    Edit: Reading this again, it sounds a bit snarky. My apologies.
     
    Last edited: May 23, 2019 at 02:56
    • Friendly Friendly x 1
  27. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    258
    The two points I had made above assume normal average gameplay. I would say most average games are not going to have what amounts to the SE version of minecraft mob spawners. I know I said the M word but that's the closest comparison I could think of. Personally I'm not fond of methods like that as they feel cheap to me, unless we're talking about an already existing base which is another case entirely. Actively building a mob spawner has always felt cheap to me. At that point I prefer to just spawn in what I need vs actively building something. Using an already existing pirate base I don't have an issue with. Just my personal preference/philosophy. I'm not going to fault others for doing it like you've described, just not my personal cup of tea.

    With that said however what you described does indeed function, but it still doesn't address the other key concerns. First it sounds like alot of risk for a very small amount uranium each time. If you want to do any kinds of major expansion or exploration you're going to want a decent sized stockpile of uranium built up before you strike out. In terms of uranium that would take a fair chunk of time to build up a sufficient stockpile to allow exploration and expansion, assuming you don't need that uranium to keep already existing reactors functioning. The other big issue is you still need to be able to get to a moon and to space in the first place to net one of the pirate ships in the first place, which is a major thing. Starting out on one of the moons at least addresses that portion of the problem, but still not how you're getting into space. While what you described will function I don't see that level of payoff being worth that level of risk. I would lastly assert that your solution is the exception to the rule but still does not disprove the general rule. I realize you probably weren't meaning that as a catch all solution anyways but was making the point. Hopefully you see what i'm getting at.

    I would like to see them stay the same size at the end of the day as well. I don't see reactor output being jacked super high like it is in real life per that previous example, but if it were to be jacked up a hefty amount, I don't see it being done without the amount of uranium you get from veins being reduced somewhat at the same time. I think what you're proposing here would work great on its own if a change were to be made. However in the previous scenario I think reducing the amount of refined uranium you come out with would end up getting paired with reducing the size of veins to begin with. I would say folks should be conserving to start with but if a change were made that I think your idea would be the best means of trying to keep veins be the same size now, just with an altered refinement conversion ratio. I'm still of the opinion however that reactors are fine where they are, but I am glad to see more thought out ideas for changes.

    Assuming you do find the crater and the storm didn't slag part of your base, you're still not getting very much of the stuff. What I'm proposing is leaving a rock about the size of one large block in the crater that contains a mixture of various substances like an actual real life meteorite would have. Say 10% silocone, 10% magnesium, 10% cobalt, 25% nikel, 5% platinum and on down the line for other elements. Those numbers aren't meant to be exact representations, but just something simple to kickstart the thought process. Like I was saying above in regards to the drone farming, I don't think the risk the storms pose is worth the small payout you get now. Changing it to leave behind a rock in the crater the size of a large block loaded with a smattering of different resources, with some potentially having the more rare resources in a higher quantity than before, would at least make me consider having them turned on. RIght now it doesn't.

    I would say it answers the question, whether it's a satisfactory answer is open for debate, and ultimately up to him. I won't presume to speak for him. I will say that it offers an answer based on my best understanding of his question.

    That's why I offered my points as to why it's not as small of an effort as he suggests. He raises some fair points and fair questions certainly, but in my book didn't take into account some factors/concerns that could potentially change his stance when examined alongside everything else.

    I agree 100% that "balance" can be a very subjective or relative term in gaming. What you or I may consider balanced another person might not. I would argue that certain items in games having distinct advantages in certain areas/situations but drawbacks of a similar magnitude in other areas is balanced, where as someone else may not. A sniper rifle or heavier caliber weapon being good for medium to long range fighting with things like SMGs and Pistols being at a disadvantage is balanced. A SMG and Pistol being better suited for more close quarters fighting is balanced. If any one type of weapon becomes THE answer in all cases, then it's OP and needs a nerf. Someone else may disagree with that assessment however. Indeed more often than not it does boil down to personal preference.

    That was my understanding of reactors as well as jump drives and similar blocks. They're made to be late game blocks, not extremely early game blocks. By the time you get to that point you should have enough resources built up, or ability to get those resources, that it's not going to matter much which one you use. I've not really had an issue with the standard vanilla reactors. I do however absolutely despise the current balance of hydrogen thrusters and think they need to be made several times more efficient as it's way too easy to piss hydrogen in my book. In fact that's part of why I said screw it and made my own thruster type.

    At the end of the day companies will typically go with whatever will appease the largest amount of their customers and fits their vision as a company.

    That's true it is part of core gameplay design as to what each block can do and how much of "it" the block can do. I don't think that much was ever in debate. What was in debate was how much "it" certain blocks should be able to do. Where we disagree is whether or not we think the reactor is balanced. I've maintained that they are balanced and are fine the way they are. They don't have a super massive technological downside like some of the others may have, but they make up for that lack of technological downside in the amount of support they require to keep running and create to start with. Simply because something may not have a downside fitting in Categories A and B, doesn't mean it lacks a downside in Categories C and D.

    If per your hypothetical the reactor was nerfed to a max of 10kw/s with twice the uranium usage, it would still be an alternative power source as the overall core function of the block wouldn't have changed. What would have changed is the amount of power it gives you. Simply because an item may give you the most of a specific stat per block, doesn't automatically make that block the best choice for the job. As we've already been through, if one doesn't need a large amount of power, then perhaps you can get by on just a few solar panels and batterires. If you need just a small amount of power for a short duration, then perhaps a hydrogen engine will give you the best option here. In other words why invest more than you need to or work harder than you need to if you don't have to? I could keep listing examples but I think you get the point.

    As per your example of a single small ion thruster lifting a massive ship no matter the size, I would be 100% absolutely fine with that happening IF there was a valid backstory reason as to why that particular lone thruster is able to lift any size object. Is it powered by something like an Omega Particle from Star Trek? Did Zeus loan out one of his lightning bolts to power it? Is Hal Jordan or John Stewart using their ring to give the thruster more lift? Is Superman under the ship pushing at the same time as the thruster? Did Iron Man use the Infinity Gauntlet to grant infinite lift capability to that thruster? Point being, is there a valid story/backstory reason as to why that particular thruster is able to lift so much. If the answer is yes then I'm cool with it.

    Right now we have a balance in place. We can debate whether the current backstory is enough to explain that current balance, and whether we believe that balance should change as a result. However that opens that same can of worms all over again and gets back into subjective territory.
     
    • Like Like x 1
  28. Mollymawk Trainee Engineer

    Messages:
    77
    What would be fun is if a reactor is placed too close to a med bay, you occasionally respawn with an extra limb or two.
     
    • Funny Funny x 4
    • Agree Agree x 2
  29. captainbladej52 Apprentice Engineer

    Messages:
    258
    Just saying if I start sprouting extra limbs, it better let me go Pong Krell on someone or I'm calling shenanigans lols
     
    • Funny Funny x 1