Destruction of Nuclear Power Plants

[Roger]

17 minutes ago, Sam Cooper said:

For you, it may not, not my concern.

But for me, yes that's all that matters, isn't it obvious though? 🤷 The game can be 'good' and popular but whether I play it or not, that solely depends on how I consider my experience to be here.

The same goes with him 

you can’t just tell anyone their opinion doesn’t matter

new guys are players too

old players know more about the good of the game but that doesn’t mean new players don’t even get to share there opinion 

[Arawra]

50 minutes ago, Sam Cooper said:

That wasn't from a pirate, I've spent more time as a landlubber. (and I don't know him for that matter)
As for why he shouldn't be sharing this thing, that's not because I reject opinions coming from new players, but because I'm afraid Alex might actually get ideas and implement those things without taking the thoughts of rest of the community into account, as he did when he removed beige.

I'd rather not have any updates at all than have updates that ruin my experience.

So instead of making points against their position, you try to invalidate their opinion merely because you don't like it. Provide constructive criticism or don't speak.

[Zei-Sakura Alsainn]

1 hour ago, Roger said:

How did you write this?

On a phone, why. I miss words sometimes on mobile.

 

1 hour ago, James II said:

Generally when there is a meltdown you get what's called a hydrogen explosion. It's a build up of hydrogen. Nuclear reactors/plants aren't designed to take hit's from missiles, bombs, and nukes. If they get hit by one irl they likely would fail. While the reactor initially, might stay intact, the cooling systems and ventilation systems would surely fail like any plumbing system would. I'm well aware of how a fission reactor works. How you concluded I did a 30 second google search I don't know. Google searches are for confirmation bias, not useful information. I'm glad you have at least some idea of the differences with degree of nuclear reactions e.g. critical and super critical, but that does not discount that a reactor would fail, a hydrogen explosion or some other could occur, and radioactive material would certainly be strewn across a city and nearby areas. It most certainly would be devastating to a region.

EDIT: To be clear, it shouldn't cause another 'nuclear explosion' but it should certainly do more damage to the city via enviornment/radiation and ifnra damage if an instance of a hydrogen explosion occurs.

Fail, absolutely. What I posted was literally the worst case scenario. The plant itself isn't designed to get slapped by missiles but the reactors are designed to contain out of control nuclear activity, you'd wipe out the plant but the reactor would be fine kinda thing. The any itself is basically just a normal factory. 

Nukes could do with a little buffing I think. It's hard to get right because it's, well, literally a nuke, balancing it so it's powerful but doesn't make conventional irrelevant is difficult.

Increased radiation is probably a good start. A lesser version of the radiation cloud when destroying an NPP, cripples the city instead of basically temporarily deleting it. If it fits population by enough it could hurt pretty bad for a few days before expiring like it does normally.

Upping the improvs it destroys to 3 or maybe even 4 would be good too without (I think) being too excessive. It'd be a big enough pain in the ass to make VDS worth a consideration.

[Sam Cooper]

29 minutes ago, Roger said:

The same goes with him 

you can’t just tell anyone their opinion doesn’t matter

new guys are players too

old players know more about the good of the game but that doesn’t mean new players don’t even get to share there opinion

Yes he shared his opinion, I shared mine

Now what was the point of your original response again?

14 minutes ago, Hime-sama said:

So instead of making points against their position, you try to invalidate their opinion merely because you don't like it. Provide constructive criticism or don't speak.

The post is just plain stupid and we should discourage such plain stupid posts, that's my constructive criticism.

I'd apologise for the rudeness to OP but that's what I think.

 

[Arawra]

1 minute ago, Sam Cooper said:

The post is just plain stupid and we should discourage such plain stupid posts, that's my constructive criticism.

Stupid on what grounds? Seems you can't actually elaborate on why the idea is stupid or "game-ruining," which means your opinion is nothing but hot air blowing into the wind. There are several people (who aren't new nations, mind you), that are interested in the idea, so it's not as obvious a write-off as you think, so come off your high horse, and have a discussion.

[Gojira75]

I see these forums are just like any other social media. Some people come on just looking to argue.

I appreciate all the constructive criticism. That's why I posted the idea here. 

The idea itself is one I am fine with @Alex tweaking as he sees fit for game balance. If he even implements it. It is HIS game after all, not mine or any of yours. If he is smart enough to create the game we all love, he is smart enough to decide which suggestions go in and how to implement them. 

I agree with the suggestion that since this is not weapons-grade, it wouldn't explode like a nuke and therefore maybe shouldn't have the same destructive power - that's true! So maybe take away the destruction of improvements. Have it have the same polluting effect as a nuke, maybe do some infra damage too.

Yes, when making a game, one must balance realism with gameplay. And that was the point of this post. Nuclear energy comes with significant risk. I am merely trying to find ways to represent something like that to the game, without breaking it. If anyone has other suggestions on how to do that, please put them in this thread.

[Roger]

1 hour ago, Sam Cooper said:

Yes he shared his opinion, I shared mine

Now what was the point of your original response again?

Yes but his opinion was about improving the game not criticising others

[Sam Cooper]

54 minutes ago, Hime-sama said:

Stupid on what grounds? Seems you can't actually elaborate on why the idea is stupid or "game-ruining," which means your opinion is nothing but hot air blowing into the wind. There are several people (who aren't new nations, mind you), that are interested in the idea, so it's not as obvious a write-off as you think, so come off your high horse, and have a discussion.

There's a saying (in programming community mostly) you might have heard of: *If it works, don't touch it*

The premise of OP's suggestion is that nuclear power plants are overpowered, and they are not, power plants are not like other conventional imps, and as such they don't need to be compared to other imps, the imp that can shut down all my other imps needs to be a bit 'overpowered' and low maintanence than others. I wouldn't want it to start causing problems in mid of a war, or simply lose it to GA or Naval like banks or mines or have it act up while I am zeroed, might not be much for hippie farmers, but for players who are constantly at war, this is esp concerning.

And ofc the implementation part, since this is not Nation States where you can randomly throw it as an event at all players equally and they'd all have to deal with it, you can only put it in war mechanics( and that poor thing has already been harassed enough), and it'd affect you and me differently. As I said above people who don't fight wars at all, whether farmers or whales at top, they probably wouldn't even notice this change, while I and others who are in war for most of the time would frequently spend loads of cash and resources (and time) fixing whatever problems this post suggests. (keeping in mind I am also not a fan of how Alex implements ideas).

14 minutes ago, Roger said:

Yes but his opinion was about improving the game not criticising others

Both are totally fine.

also, changes are not necessarily improvements.

[Roger]

I never said it was gonna improve the game

its aim was improving the game

you can’t just go and say “hey your opinion is stupid”

[Arawra]

36 minutes ago, Sam Cooper said:

There's a saying (in programming community mostly) you might have heard of: *If it works, don't touch it*

The premise of OP's suggestion is that nuclear power plants are overpowered, and they are not, power plants are not like other conventional imps, and as such they don't need to be compared to other imps, the imp that can shut down all my other imps needs to be a bit 'overpowered' and low maintanence than others. I wouldn't want it to start causing problems in mid of a war, or simply lose it to GA or Naval like banks or mines or have it act up while I am zeroed, might not be much for hippie farmers, but for players who are constantly at war, this is esp concerning.

And ofc the implementation part, since this is not Nation States where you can randomly throw it as an event at all players equally and they'd all have to deal with it, you can only put it in war mechanics( and that poor thing has already been harassed enough), and it'd affect you and me differently. As I said above people who don't fight wars at all, whether farmers or whales at top, they probably wouldn't even notice this change, while I and others who are in war for most of the time would frequently spend loads of cash and resources (and time) fixing whatever problems this post suggests. (keeping in mind I am also not a fan of how Alex implements ideas).

Improving upon mechanics is good for the game's longevity, stagnation is terrible for player retention.

I agree nuclear plants are not overpowered, I said as much earlier, but this change would serve both, as a buff to nukes, and as a disaster. This could open a new door for more things like it to be suggested/added, which I believe would add some flavour to the game. The change also has the added benefit of a realistic touch, as argued between Akuryo and James earlier.

I am also 99% sure that only nukes can destroy nuclear power plants, so you need not worry about the disaster occurring as the result of a GA or NB, or even missile. Contrary to how you perceive it, I believe this change would only serve to benefit raiders like yourself, a buff to nukes makes them more menacing, which adds more potential to pull off a successful extortion.

Not to mention, the disproportionate amount of infrastructure raiders have compared to non-raiders; their infrastructure is so low that a single nuke would likely leave the city with 0 infrastructure left for the disaster to vaporize afterward. Ignoring that nuking a raider is a stupid move to begin with, so you probably won't have to deal with this frequently.

Edited August 15, 2020 by Hime-sama

[James II]

50 minutes ago, Sam Cooper said:

There's a saying (in programming community mostly) you might have heard of: *If it works, don't touch it*

For people who get certificates maybe. Not for software engineers. You can always improve code, and a game. Suggesting Alex shouldn't try to improve the game because it isn't 'broken' is a poor argument.

[Gojira75]

I've been a professional developer\database administrator since 1998. I know a thing or two about coding and maintenance. Code that has worked for years can begin to fail when the situations such as load size or customer demands change.

My point here is that the way Nuclear Power Plants are being implemented as the be-all-end-all, completely safe power plant is in itself a flaw. It ISN'T working now, and, IMHO, this code should be optimized.

[lightside]

45 minutes ago, Gojira75 said:

I've been a professional developer\database administrator since 1998. I know a thing or two about coding and maintenance. Code that has worked for years can begin to fail when the situations such as load size or customer demands change.

My point here is that the way Nuclear Power Plants are being implemented as the be-all-end-all, completely safe power plant is in itself a flaw. It ISN'T working now, and, IMHO, this code should be optimized.

I really don't see the comparison. Nuclear plants in the game are fine as they are. Lorewise you must remember the game is in the 2050's so I assume the nuclear plants we are using are 4th or 5th generation plants not a 1st or second built in the 70s. In other words they are designed to be physically impossible to meltdown. That being said they could still turn into a dirty bomb if attacked militarily. But I would rather not have such an annoying mechanic in the game.

[Raphael]

Rebutting all of you in one post without quotes for the sake of brevity.

"I'm content-starved bored and therefore any update is a good update. Let's add negative events!"

You may be bored but you aren't putting full thought into a random event (the meltdown) triggered by a typical circumstance (low money on-hand, especially during war). What you actually want is content and you'll take any you can get, even if it sucks. And this suggestion sucks, no offense OP thank you for trying. Instead, we should be focusing on player-driven content instead of "events." Maybe blowing up ANY power plant in ANY kind of battle or missile/nuke will give extra pollution for X days but with a reduced chance of power plants being hit.

"This feels realistic because Chernobyl happened irl."

Akuryo addressed this pretty well already. Nuclear power is typically one of the safer and more environmentally friendly options that exist irl. You very, very rarely see an issue unless something else triggers it ie- soviet incompetence or a literal tsunami.

"Nuclear power plants are overpowered"

... This is probably the least thought-out statement I've seen. The problem is that nuclear power plants are the only power plant that scales while conserving on improvement slots and pollution. That's not an overpowered improvement, it's a list of useless improvements (the other power plants) that only serve the lowliest of noob nations who do not know better. We should perhaps take a look at improving those instead of trying to make the entire game a little bit worse for everyone because [see point 1 of this post].

 

 

tl;dr- no thank you. Random "disasters" are a horrible idea when this game already struggles with balance issues.

 

[Sam Cooper]

5 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

I am also 99% sure that only nukes can destroy nuclear power plants, so you need not worry about the disaster occurring as the result of a GA or NB, or even missile. Contrary to how you perceive it, I believe this change would only serve to benefit raiders like yourself, a buff to nukes makes them more menacing, which adds more potential to pull off a successful extortion.

Not to mention, the disproportionate amount of infrastructure raiders have compared to non-raiders; their infrastructure is so low that a single nuke would likely leave the city with 0 infrastructure left for the disaster to vaporize afterward. Ignoring that nuking a raider is a stupid move to begin with, so you probably won't have to deal with this frequently.

It only addresses the first suggestion : "make nukes cause double the damage when they destroy a nuclear plant too" and this one is a legit 'suggestion', still I don't like this but it isn't what my comment was about.

my previous comment was addressing the second one : "Nuclear plants are op let's make them not so op so people think twice before choosing them" this is the part that I am referring to as plain stupid, what I meant by losing them to GA or naval was that nerfing the nuclear plant could mean anything unless you specify. Making them "leak" or whatever when literally everything except mines depends on the power plant is a crazy stupid idea.

(Also addressing other responses to my "if it works, don't touch it:) Leaving a mechanic alone that affects the whole city build is not stagnation, and improving the code is not same as making changes to how it works, you can improve the code without making any changes to what the code does eventually so idk all *optimize the code* responses are supposed to be an argument against what I said there.

And again, see it in PnW's context, you get a nation id with 2 different keys("nationid", "nation_id") from 2 different API endpoints, error message is delivered with 2 different keys ("error" and "general_message"), a number is sometimes delivered as an integer from one endpoint, then as a string from another. And you want me let there be "improvements" to something game so badly depends on and hope they don't mess up the gameplay? ffs no thanks lmao

Edited August 16, 2020 by Sam Cooper

[Arawra]

5 hours ago, Roberts said:

"I'm content-starved bored and therefore any update is a good update. Let's add negative events!"

You may be bored but you aren't putting full thought into a random event (the meltdown) triggered by a typical circumstance (low money on-hand, especially during war). What you actually want is content and you'll take any you can get, even if it sucks. And this suggestion sucks, no offense OP thank you for trying. Instead, we should be focusing on player-driven content instead of "events." Maybe blowing up ANY power plant in ANY kind of battle or missile/nuke will give extra pollution for X days but with a reduced chance of power plants being hit.

Only addressing this bit because rest don't apply to me.

First refuting your poor attempt to generalize and discredit: I point you towards the suggestion made about softening the city cost curve, made rather recently, you may remember that one. I already told you, I do not think that is a good update for reasons already mentioned in that thread, so miss me with this nonsense about "so content-starved bored that any update looks good," yours did not.

Following up, why are you even bringing up the money-on-hand portion of the suggestion that got removed several posts ago? It's irrelevant to dispute at this point if anything but to serve as a filler point and beef up your "rebuttle."

The only substance in this paragraph is preference of player-driven content instead of events, which is fair, and I agree the focus should be player-driven content, however, we can have both. This suggestion need not, nor should not, be a priority, and can better serve as a nice quality of life improvement tacked onto a bigger update or in a QoL update of some sort. 

You ought to elaborate on why this update sucks to give some backing and substance to your rebuttle.

Edited August 16, 2020 by Hime-sama

[Murtaza]

Actually, the maintenance part is absurd,, raiders might not get that much affected because they run low military most of the time, but thinking about the major player base its stupid cos most of the players run full build during war times so -ve cash flow.

Tho i like the first suggestion where if a nuke destroys a plant it affects in a more disastrous way. More like 1 nuke=2 nukes. That is great, hope alex sees this suggestion

Edited August 16, 2020 by Murtaza

[Gojira75]

3 hours ago, Murtaza said:

Tho i like the first suggestion where if a nuke destroys a plant it affects in a more disastrous way. More like 1 nuke=2 nukes. That is great, hope alex sees this suggestion

Alex saw it and liked it. Twice. (I originally had it posted in a different thread, and he agreed I should create a new one for it).

Despite the vocal minority, the OP has more positive than negative votes, and as I've said a few times now, I do agree there is room for tweaking the mechanism for balance. I am not trying to punish any playing style or anything like that, just trying to add some realistic risk that comes with nuclear power plants, and a non-game-breaking way to do that. If others have other suggestions to make that happen, this is the thread for it.

[Raphael]

17 hours ago, Hime-sama said:

Only addressing this bit because rest don't apply to me.

First refuting your poor attempt to generalize and discredit: I point you towards the suggestion made about softening the city cost curve, made rather recently, you may remember that one. I already told you, I do not think that is a good update for reasons already mentioned in that thread, so miss me with this nonsense about "so content-starved bored that any update looks good," yours did not.

Following up, why are you even bringing up the money-on-hand portion of the suggestion that got removed several posts ago? It's irrelevant to dispute at this point if anything but to serve as a filler point and beef up your "rebuttle."

The only substance in this paragraph is preference of player-driven content instead of events, which is fair, and I agree the focus should be player-driven content, however, we can have both. This suggestion need not, nor should not, be a priority, and can better serve as a nice quality of life improvement tacked onto a bigger update or in a QoL update of some sort. 

You ought to elaborate on why this update sucks to give some backing and substance to your rebuttle.

I pretty much stated my opinion on "events." RNG is the worst part of any competitive game, it cheapens wins and punctuates losses when random or semi-random rolls of the dice decide the outcome of things.

 

As I also stated, this game basically is flush with balance problems. RNG tends to upset balance rather than add to it. I'm glad that the "event" basically got removed from the suggestion after two pages of debate

 

To give input to the current OP: I think taking out the power of the city is enough of a punishment as-is.

1 hour ago, Gojira75 said:

Despite the vocal minority

Sorry, I see some of the mods and Alex use this term. I'd like to quickly address that the game suggestions forum is a "vocal" minority of the game. There are only ten unique posters in this thread. Half of which disagreed with your post. Let's not mistake Game Suggestions as the place to hold votes for the next update. This is a place to pitch and debate the merits of ideas, but not a place to determine how well the userbase will receive said ideas.

 

That being said, thanks again for making a suggestion. Always nice to see new people here.

[Arawra]

21 minutes ago, Roberts said:

I pretty much stated my opinion on "events." RNG is the worst part of any competitive game, it cheapens wins and punctuates losses when random or semi-random rolls of the dice decide the outcome of things.

 

As I also stated, this game basically is flush with balance problems. RNG tends to upset balance rather than add to it. I'm glad that the "event" basically got removed from the suggestion after two pages of debate

That's fair. I also argued for removing the 'meltdown-due-to-lack-of-funds' suggestion, although for different reasons. In any case, the part of the suggestion I'm arguing for currently, is the additional damage when a nuke strikes a nuclear power plant, which, doesn't add any new element of rng since the improvements the nuke hits is already randomized. I see it merely as quality of life improvement, and an open door for other cool little events that would add flavour to otherwise boring button clicking.

[Gojira75]

19 hours ago, Roberts said:

That being said, thanks again for making a suggestion. Always nice to see new people here.

Thanks for keeping it a civil discussion about the pros and cons. That's what I was looking for with this post. As you've noticed, my suggestion has shifted a bit based on all the feedback. We still disagree about the pollution aspect, but that's OK.  

Have a great week!