Factorio Forums

Currently there's no reason to not use efficiency modules, because they reduce energy cost and pollution without any downside. They're a flat benefit, so you can just put them anywhere to reduce costs without thinking about it.

With speed modules you're working out a nice ratio of efficiency and speed (such as 3x eff. 3 and 1x speed 3). This is interesting because you could go for more speed modules and pay for it with increased energy cost and pollution (you can get more speed for less by adding more factories, you're paying for compactness).

With production you're deciding how much extra you really want for the increased energy cost, increased pollution (from both the energy cost and an extra modifier), and reduced speed. This is interesting because it's the only option for increased resource yield, but has a hefty cost for the convenience it gives.

Maybe efficiency modules should actually increase pollution, and then you could have a separate module that reduces pollution in exchange for something else (i.e. speed reduction)? I'd certainly enjoy the dilemma of picking between energy reduction and pollution reduction for my miners, as those produce a lot of both.

If I remember right the increased pollution is a direct side effect caused by the increased energy consumption since they are connected.

But yeah, there could be a downside to Efficiency modules.

If I would have to make a suggestion it would probably be "Increased Energy Efficiency in trade of Reduced Crafting Speed".

The later would require you to build a lot more machines, increasing the space requirement of Energy Efficient builds.

MeduSalem wrote:If I would have to make a suggestion it would probably be "Increased Energy Efficiency in trade of Reduced Crafting Speed".

The issue with that is that speed modules have the downside of costing more, so it would either be making the modules basically useless or being able to just use both to improve both.

In my opinion, modules should have a single benefit that outweighs the amount of the downsides, but with multiple downsides it should end up being ineffective to use every module type to cover the weaknesses of the other modules.

Something like this might work well (all are lv3):
- Efficiency: -50% Power, -10% Speed, +30% Pollution (impact speed, account for pollution)
- Speed: +50% Speed, +70% Power (as it is now)
- Productivity: +10% Produce, +80% Power, +100% Pollution, -15% Speed (account for pollution)
- Scrubber: -30% Pollution, +30% Power, -10% Speed (new module to allow decreasing pollution)
The key is that the sum of percentages on downsides is a little higher than the singular benefit, which is enough to create some interesting choices around the area even with a mixed set of modules.

For instance, a miner with 2 efficiency and 1 speed produces at 130% speed and 70% power, but produces 60% more pollution (and they pollute a lot to begin with). Alternatively, you could knock it down to 10% pollution at the cost of 190% power and 70% speed. There's a lot of options there, instead of just "3x eff. 1 for 20% power" or "3x prod. 3 for 30% more stuff". I've never seen anyone bother with speed on miners, as you can just put more down.

The thing is, efficiency modules do have a downside: You can't use speed or productivity if you use them.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

Klonan wrote:The thing is, efficiency modules do have a downside: You can't use speed or productivity if you use them.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

There's no downside compared to not using them and leaving the slot empty. There's scenarios where you might not want to use speed modules (power cost) or productivity modules (power and pollution cost), but there's absolutely no reason not to fill empty slots with efficiency modules unless you've already hit the -80% cap. Not being able to use a different module isn't a downside.

As it stands, you basically spam efficiency modules when power becomes an issue and put them everywhere to fix the issue, without a second thought.

Also, the fact that pollution is tied into the power reduction is annoying. I can't reverse the anti-polluting effects without causing it to be incorrect at any value other than a specific one. It's also bad for gameplay reasons, as it's an unlisted effect.

If you make that efficiency modules make your machines produce less, then you'll just end up adding machines to compensate, which would have as a result the same pollution, the same consumption, but at the cost of more materials to build the factory.

Not only do efficiency modules have an opportunity cost compared to using other modules, they also require time, resources, and machines to build them... and those resources also have an opportunity cost themselves. Eff modules certainly have downsides already.

Hexicube wrote:The issue with that is that speed modules have the downside of costing more, so it would either be making the modules basically useless or being able to just use both to improve both.

[...]

Do you mean Initial Setup costs or that Efficiency Modules themselves cost more?

If you mean the Efficieny Modules themselves... then well... they cost exactly the same amount of resources as Productivity/Speed Modules, with the only exception of SM3s because they require 1 SM2 less, which is neglibible. So Efficiency Modules aren't worse off than other Modules.
If you mean higher Initial Setup costs because of compensation for the Speed Reduction than read further below.

Hexicube wrote:[...]
- Efficiency: -50% Power, -10% Speed, +30% Pollution (impact speed, account for pollution)
[...]

I somehow find the thought of an "Efficiency" Module causing even MORE pollution disturbing.

Also Efficiency Modules currently cause less Pollution because Pollution depends on Energy Consumption. Less Energy Consumption = Less Pollution. More Energy Consumption = More Pollution.

Considering that the Energy Consumption can't be less while at same time Pollution going up. The same would go the other way around... The Pollution can't be less when the Energy Consumption goes up.

Klonan wrote:The thing is, efficiency modules do have a downside: You can't use speed or productivity if you use them.
Further reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opportunity_cost

I wouldn't call Opportunity Cost a "downside" or disadvantage in that matter.

My reason is following: If all given options (EMs, SMs, PMs) in a given choice share a common disadvantage... then is it still a disadvantage in relative perspective?

No, it is not because all of the options share it in a way you can't avoid it. None of the options are better off, none of the options are worse off in comparison to all the given other options because of that.

Advantages/Disadvantages that are mutual to all of the options are no real advantages/disadvantages. When balancing alternative options disadvantages are only disadvantages if they are NOT shared with all of the alternatives. And the same goes for Advantages.

The "real" disadvantages are the following:

1. Productivity Modules ... 5 Disadvantages:
   • - Speed
   • + Energy Consumption
   • + Pollution
   • Can only be used together with Intermediate Recipes
   • Cannot be used inside Beacons
2. Speed Modules ... 2 Disadvantages
   • + Energy Consumption
   • + Pollution
3. Efficiency Modules ... 1 Disadvantage
   • Cap at 20% of base Energy Use of the respective machine

The "real" advantages are the following:

1. Productivity Modules ... 1 Advantage:
   • + Productivity
2. Speed Modules ... 1 Advantage:
   • + Speed
3. Efficiency Modules ... 2 Advantages:
   • - Energy Consumption
   • - Pollution

It becomes clear that Efficiency Modules have 2 advantages but only 1 negligible disadvantage, while Speed Modules have 1 advantage, but 2 disadvantages and the worst off are Productivity Modules because they have 1 advantage but up to 5 disadvantages.

I wouldn't call that "balanced". I would go even so far to say that Efficiency Modules aren't the only ones that could require some rebalancing because as it stands Productivity Modules either have too many disadvantages or the Efficieny/Speed Modules too few.

Maybe changing the Modules to a Rock-Paper-Scissors system altogether wouldn't be too bad.
I like variant 1 more. And no, combinating different module types wouldn't completely cancel out each others bonus effects. The Bonus effects would still be far greater than the malus effects. Like for example Productivty Modules currently have -15% speed, but boosting them with Speed Modules having +50% speed still works quite fine.

Koub wrote:If you make that efficiency modules make your machines produce less, then you'll just end up adding machines to compensate, which would have as a result the same pollution, the same consumption, but at the cost of more materials to build the factory.

That only depends on the balancing. Here is how an example balancing could look like:

• Efficiency Module 1: -30% Energy Consumption, -10% Speed
• Efficiency Module 2: -40% Energy Consumption, -15% Speed
• Efficiency Module 3: -50% Energy Consumption, -20% Speed

The above balancing wouldn't result in setups that would cause the "same pollution"/"same consumption" as setups without Efficiency Modules. Even if you compensate for the throughput loss you would still have the advantage of requiring less overall energy.

Example using only 1 Efficiency Module inside an Assembler:

• EM1: For every 10 Assemblers you would need 1 additional assembler to compensate the -10% speed reduction:
  Overall energy consumption with vs without EM's: (10 + 1) x (100% - 30%) = 770% vs 10 x 100% = 1000%
• EM2: For every 10 Assemblers you would need 1.5 additional assemblers to compensate the -15% speed reduction:
  Overall energy consumption with vs without EM's: (10 + 1.5) x (100% - 40%) = 690% vs 10 x 100% = 1000%
• EM3: For every 10 Assemblers you would need 2 additional assemblers to compensate the -20% speed reduction:
  Overall energy consumption with vs without EM's: (10 + 2) x (100 - 50%) = 600% vs 10 x 100% = 1000%

Example using 2 Efficiency Modules inside an Assembler:

• EM1: For every 10 Assemblers you would need 2 additional assembler to compensate the 2 x -10% speed reduction:
  Overall energy consumption with vs without EM's: (10 + 2) x (100% - 2 x 30%) = 480% vs 10 x 100% = 1000%
• EM2: For every 10 Assemblers you would need 3 additional assemblers to compensate the 2 x -15% speed reduction:
  Overall energy consumption with vs without EM's: (10 + 3) x (100% - 2 x 40%) = 260% vs 10 x 100% = 1000%
• EM3: For every 10 Assemblers you would need 4 additional assemblers to compensate the 2 x -20% speed reduction:
  Overall energy consumption with vs without EM's: (10 + 4) x (100% - 2 x 50%) = 0% vs 10 x 100% = 1000% (lower consumption limit would kick in, so it is also 260% vs 1000%)

You see, one could go even more hardcore with the Speed Reduction than I assumed before the compensation would start to outweigh the gain. So the thought "compensation always outweighs gain" is flawed from a mathematical perspective.

Though I agree, it would cause higher initial setup costs because in my example you need to craft respectively 10%/15%/20% (x 2 for two Modules) more assemblers/modules for a setup with the same throughput as a setup without any Efficiency Modules.

But let me say... Nobody really gives a damn about initial setup costs except some Speed Runners. Also don't forget people generally tend to use Modules only if they plan on playing the map for a long time anyways otherwise most of the higher level modules would never pay off, which is also true for Speed Modules and Productivity Modules, not only Efficiency Modules.

Supercheese wrote:Not only do efficiency modules have an opportunity cost compared to using other modules, they also require time, resources, and machines to build them... and those resources also have an opportunity cost themselves. Eff modules certainly have downsides already.

All Modules have basically the same resource requirements, same crafting time, and require the same machines to build them, so the Efficiency Modules aren't worse off than Speed/Productivity Modules when compared for their raw materials or how long it takes to make them. So there is NO real downside with Efficiency Modules from that perspective. (Yeah SM3s cost 1 SM2 less, like I already mentioned at the beginning but the difference isn't big enough to make any difference)

With other words resource costs and crafting time are the same case like I wrote above to Klonan about Opportunity costs: They are nothing more than an illusion. They are not real advantages/disadvantages because of how you can change them or even remove them from the equation and it wouldn't change anything about how EMs, SMs and PMs are balanced in comparison to one another.

MeduSalem wrote:

Hexicube wrote:The issue with that is that speed modules have the downside of costing more, so it would either be making the modules basically useless or being able to just use both to improve both.

Do you mean Initial Setup costs or that Efficiency Modules themselves cost more?

My bad, missed a word. They cost more power to run, so making the efficiency module have the only down-side of reducing power takes focus away from productivity. That's arguably a good thing, but then there's also the problem of either one (or both) modules are considered under-powered, or you can use both to get around both down-sides for a flat boost (which returns to the current issue).

MeduSalem wrote:If you mean higher Initial Setup costs because of compensation for the Speed Reduction than read further below.

Hexicube wrote:[...]
- Efficiency: -50% Power, -10% Speed, +30% Pollution (impact speed, account for pollution)
[...]

I somehow find the thought of an "Efficiency" Module causing even MORE pollution disturbing.

I don't, there's a difference between being efficient and being clean. I could use a blunderbuss to shred 50 bits of paper at once, which is efficient, but certainly isn't clean nor optimal.

The other thing is that I picked those values to balance around gameplay instead of being realistic, since adding a card to a machine to somehow reduce power costs is absurd.

MeduSalem wrote:Also Efficiency Modules currently cause less Pollution because Pollution depends on Energy Consumption. Less Energy Consumption = Less Pollution. More Energy Consumption = More Pollution.

Considering that the Energy Consumption can't be less while at same time Pollution going up. The same would go the other way around... The Pollution can't be less when the Energy Consumption goes up.

That's just because it's tied into the mechanics. I'd find it believable that a more ham-fisted approach to processing that uses less energy would cause more pollution, and a more careful procedure to reduce pollution would cost more energy.

MeduSalem wrote:Maybe changing the Modules to a Rock-Paper-Scissors system altogether wouldn't be too bad.

Example Balancing

Balancing.png

I like variant 1 more. And no, combinating different module types wouldn't completely cancel out each others bonus effects. The Bonus effects would still be far greater than the malus effects. Like for example Productivty Modules currently have -15% speed, but boosting them with Speed Modules having +50% speed still works quite fine.

IMO, productivity modules are fine because they're the only module to offer the convenience of resources lasting longer (which stacks multiplicatively and can spiral out of control quite fast).

MeduSalem wrote:That only depends on the balancing. Here is how an example balancing could look like:

• Efficiency Module 1: -30% Energy Consumption, -10% Speed
• Efficiency Module 2: -40% Energy Consumption, -15% Speed
• Efficiency Module 3: -50% Energy Consumption, -20% Speed

Worth mentioning, that actually makes tier 1 modules the most optimal to use. I like how the game currently keeps downsides pretty much the same through the tiers, so that could be kept to signify you want to use tier 3 modules where appropriate.

Hexicube wrote:I don't, there's a difference between being efficient and being clean. I could use a blunderbuss to shred 50 bits of paper at once, which is efficient, but certainly isn't clean nor optimal.

Well good point. Can't say anything against that.

Which leads me to the next point...

Hexicube wrote:

MeduSalem wrote:Also Efficiency Modules currently cause less Pollution because Pollution depends on Energy Consumption. Less Energy Consumption = Less Pollution. More Energy Consumption = More Pollution.

Considering that the Energy Consumption can't be less while at same time Pollution going up. The same would go the other way around... The Pollution can't be less when the Energy Consumption goes up.

That's just because it's tied into the mechanics. I'd find it believable that a more ham-fisted approach to processing that uses less energy would cause more pollution, and a more careful procedure to reduce pollution would cost more energy.

Which would require the two to be uncoupled/independent from each other. So more Energy doesn't automatically mean more Pollution. If the both would independent from one another then I think your approach could work out quite interestingly.

Hexicube wrote:IMO, productivity modules are fine because they're the only module to offer the convenience of resources lasting longer (which stacks multiplicatively and can spiral out of control quite fast)..

Which is actually a reason why I have been arguing that Productivity Modules are rather pointless anyways about 2 years back or so in another thread about Modules. There are infinite resources on the map except if you chose to limit yourself on purpose with a fixed size map. So there is no real reason to make resources last longer. What's the point in it?

110% Yield x Infinite Resources = Still Infinite Resources.

So there are not limited resources that would justify budgeting resources or improve on the yield during production. So why even have Productivity Modules?

Yeah it makes the resources last longer, but it only delays the inevitable... you have to expand your base. I might even argue that productivity modules kill some of the need for expansion to a certain degree so you never have to leave the starting area. The only other reason is layout compactness, but that can be achieved much more efficiently with Speed Modules.

So productivity modules could be easily removed from the game, wouldn't change much of the gameplay. It's either that or they should be given an entirely different purpose other than improving on the yield. But if I remember right the other thread turned out to be a vast "hell no, leave them in/the way they are" even if there is no real gameplay value to them and like you said only led to abuse so their applicabillity had to be restricted considerably when compared to the two other Module types.

MeduSalem wrote:110% yield x Infinity = still infinity.

I think you miss where the real power of productivity modules shine:

4 lv3 prod. modules in an assembler adds 40% yield to that step
Two chained assemblers adds 96% to anything passed into the first
Three chained assemblers adds 174.4% to first step
Four chained assemblers adds ~284% to first step

It rapidly spirals out of control, bearing in mind that 3 in miners and 2 in furnaces is also adding a fair amount to raw resources to begin with. You easily quadruple yield if you're making a bunch of modules...or rocket parts.

Hexicube wrote:

MeduSalem wrote:110% yield x Infinity = still infinity.

I think you miss where the real power of productivity modules shine:

4 lv3 prod. modules in an assembler adds 40% yield to that step
Two chained assemblers adds 96% to anything passed into the first
Three chained assemblers adds 174.4% to first step
Four chained assemblers adds ~284% to first step

It rapidly spirals out of control, bearing in mind that 3 in miners and 2 in furnaces is also adding a fair amount to raw resources to begin with. You easily quadruple yield if you're making a bunch of modules...or rocket parts.

I didn't miss that point because doing that is just ridiculous when the map provides Infinite Resources. It basically just means you never have to leave the Starting Area to collect more resources... What's the fun in that?

I have obviously played the game for too long because I think shortcuts like these are unnecessary and feel like a cheap cheat.

That doesn't mean I didn't use that "cheat" myself a lot too back in the old days, but I acknowledged to myself that using productivity modules skips a lot of the expansion gameplay and expanding the factory is the only real reason we actually have to play the game.

Well, I don't really care all that much about what happens to them in the base game, because I already mod and change it anyway.

But I read that long post by MeduSalem, and it was just so big I didn't want to actually quote it...

But I agree with the Rock-Paper-Scissors system idea, and variant 1 does make a lot of sense.

Productivity: + Productivity - Efficiency. Stretch your materials to make them last longer at the cost of extra energy
Speed: +Speed -Productivity. Go faster! your materials don't go as far
Efficiency: +Efficiency - Speed. Reduce energy consumption, by taking your time.

Of course... there is another factor in your example that you missed... +Speed = +energy consumption too.
Energy consumption is based on Watts, how much energy is consumed per second, therefore every tick that the production runs, it uses more power.
+20% speed = +20% energy consumption because it runs 20% longer while using the same power.
This should be taken into account when rebalancing the modules.


One of the changes I would recommend is to unbind the pollution created to energy consumption, make it as a separate entity. Currently, Pollution is defined as a set amount per energy consumed... it should change instead to simply be this much pollution per tick/second while the factory is actually running. In fact with some factories, such as assembling machines, I'd suggest unbinding pollution from the factory entirely and instead put it on the recipe, so some recipes can produce more pollution than others.
(An example, looking at my mod, is venting excess gasses. Chlorine is a contaminant and venting it should produce a lot more pollution than venting oxygen, or nitrogen, which are effectively restoring the atmosphere, currently, since the pollution is defined by the amount of energy the entity consumes, everything pollutes the same. If Pollution generated was moved to a recipe, I'd change numbers to reflect this.)

For modules, this would mean that changing energy consumption doesn't directly change pollution along with it, and would make pollution reducing modules something you might be interested in, rather than just reducing the energy consumption.

You could then have 4 module schools instead of just 3.

Isn't it wonderful how one suggestion leads to another?

bobingabout wrote:Productivity: + Productivity - Efficiency. Stretch your materials to make them last longer at the cost of extra energy
Speed: +Speed -Productivity. Go faster! your materials don't go as far
Efficiency: +Efficiency - Speed. Reduce energy consumption, by taking your time.

Actually, variant 2 makes more sense for the most part...

Productivity = + Productivity - Speed: Take care to perfectly measure your materials, re-use any offcuts, really stretching those resources takes a little more time. It shouldn't really take more energy, because it does anyway by taking more time, and it shouldn't make much more pollution either because you're leaving less waste material.
Speed = +Speed -Efficiency: Run the machine in overdrive, it takes more power!
Efficiency = +Efficiency -Productivity: Okay, this one is just hard to match up and makes about as much sense either way... I'd actually say it worked better the other way.
Efficiency = +Efficiency -Speed: You don't really need a rock-paper-scissors system for it to work, Dial up the speed, use more power, Dial down the speed, use less power. You just need to get the numbers right.

Actually level 3 productivity modules hardly have any speed loss. If you take for example 4 of them you have 40% productivity and 60% less crafting speed. The -speed is largely counteracted by the fact that you produce "free ones" inbetween. Although the speed penalty should actually scale 5/10/15, because it really is useless to use low level productivity ones because of it.

Also the point isn't about infinite mats being availible your infrastructure also has to support all this. Using productivity modules might make the difference between being able to handle the input with 1 lane opposed to 2 etc.

Again, balancing. Though the scale of modules isn't exactly linier as it is.

I think instead of x1, x2, x3, the numbers would be better off looking more like x1, x1.5, x2, so a MK3 has twice the effect of a MK1, not thrice.
And the negative effect should lessen for the higher grade too... for example...

Productivity MK1: +5% Productivity -10% Speed = 94.5% Production Speed
Productivity MK2: +7.5% Productivity -12.5% Speed = 94% Production Speed
Productivity MK3: +10% Productivity - 15% Speed = 93.5 Production speed

As you can see by this example, there is a net loss in actual production speed in all areas, but less so as the grade increases... though if you actually put those numbers in a calculator, the production speed actually drops. One of the issues of the speeds actually being multiplicative. This is likely why it starts at 15% and remains there for all levels.
(When you reduce the speed, not only do you reduce the speed of the original production, but you also reduce the speed of the productivity bonus as well. Result is 90% speed and 5% productivity bonus of that 90% speed, resulting in a 4.5% Productivity bonus of the original speed, resulting in 94.5% overall production speed.)

And I know, if you look at my modules mod, it's nothing like my example, it makes things way too easy Which is why it has the config options, and I plan to not only add more, but change the default values too for the next big release.

I don't understand the extreme penalty on speed and prod modules.

Right now with 2x "Speed module 3" in assembler I get:
(+huge up front price for modules)
+100% speed
+140% energy consumption

By building 2 assemblers I get:
+100% speed
+100% energy consumption

Even If the speed module had no penalty what so ever
+100% speed
-50% energy consumption (as a result of double output)

I would still be better off with 2 assemblers with 2x "efficiency module 2" each
(less cost than "speed module 3")
+100% speed
-60% energy consumption (2x assemblers with 20% consumed)


I just feel the speed module should give me some improvement over just building 2 assemblers/chemical plants etc.
Right now I use them in depleted pumpjacks and nowhere else, it just doesn't make sense.

Maybe the efficiency modules should only reduce pollution. Or is that absolutely tied to energy consumption?

icanfly342 wrote:Maybe the efficiency modules should only reduce pollution. Or is that absolutely tied to energy consumption?

No, Pollution is absolutely tied to energy consumption, so changing energy consumption also changes pollution. Changing Pollution is an option as well and doesn't effect energy consumption.

Energy consumption effects pollution, because Pollution is defined as units of pollution per energy consumed.
Speed effects Energy consumption, because energy consumed per tick remains the same, so if it runs faster, it uses less energy.
Speed also effects productivity bonus, because this is a percentage of a cycle per cycle. 10% Productivity bonus means that every time you complete a construction cycle, the productivity bonus bar fills by 10%, therefore every 10th cycle you get a product for free. Slow down your cycle speed, those 10 cycles take longer.

Speed modules are only really interesting where you simply can't build two of. For example pumps, refineries (yes you can add more and more but the piping will make people mad ) or simply miners. Yes you could technically build another outpost but that comes at a price like more miners, logistics etc.

MeduSalem wrote:--- Biglargequote about rock-paper-scissors approach. Presents two variants---

Keep in mind that a negative (final) productivity modifier makes no real sense. Does it then consume an extra set of resources every time the bar fills up? What if there are no resources? Does it stop? Does it instead fail to produce an item every time the bar fills up?

For this reason (along with personal taste) I'd make speed and productivity modules both increase energy consumption. (Significantly for productivity, minor for speed).
Efficiency should still reduce energy consumption (with no "downside") but I'd additionally limit it to not be able to reduce a machine's energy consumption below 90% of its normal operation (i.e. without modules in it). Currently it can go as low as 20%.
That way, the main purpose of efficiency modules is to counter the negative effect of other modules.
The downside becomes that of "lost opportunity" as was stated before. In that you are now offering up additional benefits to instead counter (possibly only partially) the disadvantages.

Yes, you can always simply "produce more power". But that either produces more pollution itself, or takes up large amounts of resources and space. (I.e. yes, solar is a once-off investment for infinite power. But I argue that that system is in itself broken as is currently.)
Additionally, not countering the extra power consumption will (under current mechanics) result in increased pollution from the module-ed machines themselves.

bobingabout wrote:--- Suggestion about uncoupling pollution and energy consumption. ---

That would certainly allow for more variety in modules and machines. I'd like to see that as well.

Personally I wouldn't go so far as to move pollution values to recipes.