Search Results
8/3/2025, 1:37:33 PM
>>533771562
>i think you're completely wrong and off-base about rimatomics. it's already very easy
I did not mean to say that it was hard, just tedious when many mods needlessly have a pipeline. In the end it's more micromanagement stacked on before you unlock the win-button tools.
>do you let it all hang out like the soviets
This disingenuously implies some sort of deep risk-reward choice when rimatomics does the complete opposite. You'd have to intentionally sandbag yourself to cause a meltdown or choose not to utilize the overpowered turrets and warheads.
>do you fully transition to nuclear and make your base dependent on it or do you run it as a side experiment to power your awesome defense grid... terrific sandbox implementation really
It's procedural busywork, played the same way every time. You drop down buildings and connect them and assign a job. Everyone loves early game planning, right? Research gates progress but there are no real meaningful choices, you just get everything. Scarcity/external danger is gone and so is the interest. Depth would be managing unpredictable consequences, which it doesn't have.
>re: geothermals
Apples and oranges. Geothermal vents are abstracted in-game as stable, passive, zero-fuel, zero-management heat taps. Comparing them to a player-managed, fuel-dependent, possibly catastrophic fission reactor is not relevant to a gameplay mechanics discussion. It doesn't address the criticism of Rimatomics' complexity and trivializing the game either. What was this supposed to state to reinforce your argument?
There's room for smaller scope vanilla-leaning nuclear power mods the same way there's room for chemfuel expanded to exist alongside rimfeller. If you want a simulation of nuclear mechanics alongside extensive gameplay conveniences, then rimatomics is uncontested, but not everyone wants that. Ultimately it's down to subjective taste but I think rimatomics still has glaring flaws and you are wrong. Sandboxes require friction.
>i think you're completely wrong and off-base about rimatomics. it's already very easy
I did not mean to say that it was hard, just tedious when many mods needlessly have a pipeline. In the end it's more micromanagement stacked on before you unlock the win-button tools.
>do you let it all hang out like the soviets
This disingenuously implies some sort of deep risk-reward choice when rimatomics does the complete opposite. You'd have to intentionally sandbag yourself to cause a meltdown or choose not to utilize the overpowered turrets and warheads.
>do you fully transition to nuclear and make your base dependent on it or do you run it as a side experiment to power your awesome defense grid... terrific sandbox implementation really
It's procedural busywork, played the same way every time. You drop down buildings and connect them and assign a job. Everyone loves early game planning, right? Research gates progress but there are no real meaningful choices, you just get everything. Scarcity/external danger is gone and so is the interest. Depth would be managing unpredictable consequences, which it doesn't have.
>re: geothermals
Apples and oranges. Geothermal vents are abstracted in-game as stable, passive, zero-fuel, zero-management heat taps. Comparing them to a player-managed, fuel-dependent, possibly catastrophic fission reactor is not relevant to a gameplay mechanics discussion. It doesn't address the criticism of Rimatomics' complexity and trivializing the game either. What was this supposed to state to reinforce your argument?
There's room for smaller scope vanilla-leaning nuclear power mods the same way there's room for chemfuel expanded to exist alongside rimfeller. If you want a simulation of nuclear mechanics alongside extensive gameplay conveniences, then rimatomics is uncontested, but not everyone wants that. Ultimately it's down to subjective taste but I think rimatomics still has glaring flaws and you are wrong. Sandboxes require friction.
Page 1