Heat Factor - A balacing idea to solar and accumulators

[calvinjliao]

So, I've read a bit on the balancing on solar panels and accumulators, and people seem to agree that they provide too free of a power generation.

However, so far, the balance fixes that people propose all have one major flaw, and that's the capability to be solved by just building more. So, I needed to find an idea that wouldn't be solved by just mass numbers alone.

I tried to work out the best possible idea with these goals in mind:
1. Megabases, which have devoted massive hours to clearing land, setting up production, etc. have earned the right to use solar and accumulators efficiently
2. Small bases which do not expand enough to have not earned that right, and should be punished for attempting to mass solar and accumulators
3. The balancing factor cannot just be solved with just more solar panels or accumulators
4. Randomness is not viable, it only makes people use brute force solutions. Find a balance that guarantees that proper use of solar and accumulators will have reliable results, but have drawbacks or limitations in such a way that producing more won't solve it.

So, here is the concept of heat factor:

Solar panels and accumulators produce heat. Solar produces heat while producing power, and accumulators produce heat both when charging and discharging energy. Heat works similar to pollution: It spreads out over time, and dissipates into the environment slowly. Large bodies of water could perhaps absorb heat faster.
When using only a few solar panels and accumulators in an area, heat production is low. Low levels of heat should disperse rapidly, and have no consequences. Properly spread out solar panels and accumulators are safe to use. Tightly packing many solar panels or accumulators generates a lot of heat, and creates problems.
To give incentives to using steam power, because the steam cools when using it to generate electricity, it produces no or extremely little heat factor.
As heat levels in an area rise, it has the following consequences (Relative order, so the events on the top on the list occur first):
Some of these effects I'm unsure of, so I have question marks by their number.

0?. Enemies could like be affected by warm areas.
Possible effects:
- Nests that receive moderate heat produce more biters/spitters for the same amount of pollution absorbed.
- Nest groups could have a larger maximum size
- Enemies spawned in warm areas could have higher resistances.
1. The area is too warm, and components don't function optimally. Power production from solars is reduced. Accumulators' maximum capacity, maximum charge rate, and maximum discharge rate is reduced. Heat production however, is not reduced.
3?. Too much heat near steam engines reduces their efficiency, also reducing their power output. (The idea here is to ensure they spread out solar and accumulators, so that backup power isn't enough to compensate for the problems of crowding.)
2. The area becomes too warm for players to navigate easily. Entering areas with high enough heat will begin to burn the player slowly. Damage scales with heat levels.
4. Heat levels are too high for components, and they begin to melt. Buildings in the area start to take damage over time.
5?. Bug nests near the area now receive too much heat, irritating the bugs. They will occasionally seek out the largest sources of heat, and attempt to attack it. The sources are very hot though, so even the biters will take small damage over time while in the area. Trees directly in the area catch on fire.
6. Extreme levels of heat should be crazy to achieve, but if somehow managed:
- The area is too hot for life. Any living thing in the area is killed, players or bugs. Trees would have burned down by now.
- Past buildings should not have survived the incredible heat. Anything new built should melt very quickly, being destroyed in moments.

Once the sources of heat production are removed, like pollution, heat will slowly disappear, making the area once again usable.

Heat factor can be expanded with more technologies. Possible features could include coolants, fans, heat resistant suits (To get in to the area to fix your mistake!), and others.

Of course, this is all just a concept. Other ideas, improvements, comments, criticism, are all welcome.

[bobucles]

Did you just create a whole new pollution system to handle one tiny facet of power generation?

Did you also just imply that STEAM had less thermal energy than a solar panel dispersing the energy of the sun?

It's a lot of work for a system that isn't guaranteed to give useful results, if the idea is to promote a deliberate change in player activity. Tougher biters can be handled by simply just liek make more laser turrets and don't worry.

[calvinjliao]

Its just a suggestion. So far, the balance factors that people have suggested can be solved through just building more. Like I said, I was just looking for a different solution. If you have a better balance idea - by all means, post it!

As for being realistic, couldn't you argue that the steam rises into the atmosphere, condensing at a high altitude, becoming part of (the nonexistent) rain?

Trying to solve stronger biters with more laser turrets only feeds back into the problem. You increase the energy demand, so you build more, and produce more heat, which makes even stronger biters.
However, I do agree that biter interactions definitely can definitely be improved upon.

[ssilk]

I'm sure Bobocules doesn't wrote it due to missing respect of you as person, but to discuss the objective.
(I think it's clear, that this board is sometimes quite controversal discussed, but in general with greatest respect to the persons.)

[Qon]

Steam requires a lot of coal/solid fuel to power a megabase, more than what is feasible to mine with vanilla ore generation. But a megabase also requires more iron/copper than what is feasible to mine with vanilla ore genereation. Unless you want to spend all your time making new outposts. Steam is superior to solar if your resource patches are rich enough to feed a megabase. Steam is much more compact and much cheaper to craft. The primary advantage of solar for a megabase is the fact that solar uses 0% of your CPU time and that it is blueprintable. If your goal is to build a single rocket then solar/accu is just a waste of resources unless you are unable to get any fuel. The disadvantage with steam isn't fuel usage for a megabase. The balance problem is that vanilla coal patches are not enough for a megabase. Nerfing solar is treating the symptoms instead of the cause.

And your suggestion doesn't make any sense even if I disregard the fact that it is trying to solve the wrong problem.

[Harkonnen604]

It depends on how you treat power. Factorio is about having many headaches in the beginning which you start automating to treat them all. First you chop trees and harvest coal manually. Then you run between stone furnaces and burner drills. Then you get electricity and do not have to deliver coal to drills anymore (1st major headache solved). Then you craft first science bottles manually. They are long to craft. Once you research automation, the machine starts doing that for you. Another major headache removed. Then you get blueprints and another headache is out (placing many buildings by hand). Then you get logistics and one more headache is out (cumbersome belt systems). Overall - about solar power. It's just another one more headache is out, you no longer need to feed it with coal/oil But price is high though, those panels eat a lot of resources. 50% of not-megabase-just-a-base production would be diverted to solar panels only (with 4 assembly machines) often leaving your steel and/or green circuits lanes almost dry.

But on the other hand that thing of constant need of feeding coal (and build coal outpost) is kind of a thrill, because the price of blackout is high, so that keeps tension, forces you to keep chests full of wood just in case and sometimes switch to solid fuel. So it's a matter of attitude if power is a headache or a thrill. I personally stick to point that it's a thrill, it sorta adds a mission to what you are doing (besides getting a rocket), a critical mission to quickly find more coal and kill that damn huge biter colony near a patch. So I agree that solars should be nerfed because switching to them removes that thrill from the game. For same reasons some people don't like logistic bots because laying out belts is more of a puzzle than a headache. And for the opposite reason some automated tree harvester would be very handy in the early game, red science level cuz chopping forests is a real headache and it's not resolved until late game when you have no forests to chop.

As for nerfing solars - I would make them deteriorate very quickly. This will make them unusable without construction bots network and you will effectively switch coal to copper/iron to produce repair packs They may have like 1000 health to make repair cost considerable and loose some random amount of health 50-100 once in random time (30-120 seconds). So that bots don't fly all the time repairing them, but still roboports get big fat load supporting that damn solar farm... and the price of lack of repair packs or bots is high as well - your cool solar farm will simply self-destruct in like 40 minutes

[thereaverofdarkness]

Solar panels actually are quite cool even in direct sunlight. Everything else around them will be hot but they won't be.

[Harkonnen604]

I guess everything around solar panels should be cold for they drain sun energy that would hit earth beneath otherwise. Frozen inserters, frozen belts, frozen lakes. And frozen biters In no way it's a green technology given area they cover.

[thereaverofdarkness]

They aren't that cold.

Real world solar farms pollute by killing off plant life and disrupting ecosystems.

[siggboy]

The balance problem is that vanilla coal patches are not enough for a megabase. Nerfing solar is treating the symptoms instead of the cause.

That's true, but maybe the problem with megasteam is not the lack of coal, but rather that it scales very poorly compared to solar. Solar only requires more space, steam requires more coal supply (and supply is a constant stream of resources). If we had a higher tier steam option that would be more coal efficient it would easily become the superior option due to it being a lot more compact and easier to expand.

I agree that nerfing solar (in whatever way) is duct-taping a solution together (and it's probably not going to work out anyway). You don't even have to touch solar if you provide more viable, scaling, alternatives.

[bobucles]

Real world solar farms pollute by killing off plant life and disrupting ecosystems.

In a desert that isn't much of a problem at all, and some salt flats are nearly lifeless. Logistics aside, there is more than enough desert in the state of Nevada to supply the entire WORLD with solar power. It's a shame that certain nations located at the intersection of 3 major eastern continents can't see just how damn close they are to being the world hub of energy.

Solar panels will be a bit cooler in the sun because they're turning solar energy into electricity. That electricity can go elsewhere to be eventually turned into heat (thanks thermodynamics!). No physical laws are being broken. The heat still eventually happens, just somewhere else. Even trees will have a cooling effect because they're turning solar light into chemical sugar/wood energy (sometimes released into huge forest fires, OFC).

Anyway my point earlier is that OP is designing a HUGE system to tackle a fairly small problem. Small problems should have small, simple solutions.

[m44v]

Solar panels will be a bit cooler in the sun because they're turning solar energy into electricity. That electricity can go elsewhere to be eventually turned into heat (thanks thermodynamics!). No physical laws are being broken. The heat still eventually happens, just somewhere else. Even trees will have a cooling effect because they're turning solar light into chemical sugar/wood energy (sometimes released into huge forest fires, OFC).

Solar panels get warm (the cells at least) as they convert energy, I'm not sure where the "will be a bit cooler" comes from, they will not, a part of the sunlight gets converted to electricity, the rest becomes heat (unless you want to get pedantic). Is a real issue when designing solar installation since heat reduces their power output, but really it isn't that big of a deal that warrants its use as a balancing factor.

I would rather see Wube getting rid of the trapezoidal abomination that we have now, than getting heat involved.

[MeduSalem]

The balance problem is that vanilla coal patches are not enough for a megabase. Nerfing solar is treating the symptoms instead of the cause.

That's true, but maybe the problem with megasteam is not the lack of coal, but rather that it scales very poorly compared to solar. Solar only requires more space, steam requires more coal supply (and supply is a constant stream of resources). If we had a higher tier steam option that would be more coal efficient it would easily become the superior option due to it being a lot more compact and easier to expand.

I agree that nerfing solar (in whatever way) is duct-taping a solution together (and it's probably not going to work out anyway). You don't even have to touch solar if you provide more viable, scaling, alternatives.

I hate to disagree, but even if the coal patches were almost endless and even if there were a more efficient boiler/steam engine it wouldn't make Steam power more attractive late game (that said I'm a Steam Guy and I absolutely refuse using Solar Power because of how boring and cheaty it is).

In my opinion the problem is that people clearly see that Solar Power is overpowered but choose to live with it for convenience sake. Using Solar Power is better in the long run because it only has to be set up once and provides free energy for all eternity without requiring you to interfere every now and then. It doesn't require you to build any clever maintainance production circles that you have to expand together with the Power Plant to prevent power death spirals or performance from degrading over time or anything else along the line that keeps the energy coming at max output. It's a real "no brainer", just like the other big thread says.

So it's basically the "build once, forget about that the energy part even exists" that is the convincing factor from which people don't want to step back anymore since Solar Power is now so conveniently lackluster that majority doesn't want to change anything about it. It's like if people would be used to being gifted with free fuel just because they invested in a much more expensive Ferrari. How dare someone even suggesting that you have to put additional work into it to keep the car in motion. The same with Solar Power... It never required any maintenance in the first place and now if anyone just dares to say that it should because it's absolutely unrealistic and unbalanced that it currently doesn't require anything it will be dismissed almost immediately as "you want to make things more complicated for the sake of it".

Which wouldn't even be remotely the case if the devs would never have added such an easy cop out for a major game feature like power production in the first place. If they'd have implemented Solar Power with a maintanence circle (however that would have looked like is another story) that would have to grow/scale with the size of the Solar Power Plant, nobody would complain today. It would be taken as given and it would be regarded to fit in with the theme of "maintaining and automating a factory".


That's why I'm already looking forward to how much more balance complaining and suggestions there will be once the devs add an additional way to produce power... like Wind energy or Nuclear Power Plants. In reality none of them are free of maintanence either, and they also suffer their own ups/downs.


That said I'm not really that much of a fan of the Heat Factor suggestion. There have been more interesting/convincing suggestions on how to balance Solar Panels/Accumulators in relation to Steam Power and even future ways to produce power over in the dedicated "Solar Panels less of a No brainer" thread.

[Photoloss]

Sorry, but pretty much every other part of the base should be putting out way more heat than the solar panels.
Your suggestion also does not address the potential cop-out of just spacing your panel farms further apart. In terms of actual gameplay, how would your suggestion noticeably differ from just reducing the power output or increasing the size?

In my opinion the problem is that people clearly see that Solar Power is overpowered but choose to live with it for convenience sake. Using Solar Power is better in the long run because it only has to be set up once and provides free energy for all eternity without requiring you to interfere every now and then. It doesn't require you to build any clever maintainance production circles that you have to expand together with the Power Plant to prevent power death spirals or performance from degrading over time or anything else along the line that keeps the energy coming at max output. It's a real "no brainer", just like the other big thread says.

How is that different from any belt- or bot-fed automation system in the rest of the factory? Everything except mining requires zero maintenance if you set it up properly. That also goes for steam power by the way, you only have to adjust the fuel input and not the actual electricity generation.
Power does lack complexity though, we tend to rebuild other systems as objectively superior upgrades become available, but whether steam or solar it's always just "build more of the same". In my eyes the proper solution to the supposed "imbalance" of solar panels is to add a new form of lategame power generation, right now they technically are the latest, most high-tech power gen and therefore should be the go-to solution once available.

[bobucles]

That's true, but maybe the problem with megasteam is not the lack of coal, but rather that it scales very poorly compared to solar.

A megabase is not normal. A megabase uses piles of productivity modules and speed beacons to multiply the input of resources. This can lead to energy costs skyrocketing up to 10x or more of a normal base, and potentially 50x more than an efficiency module base. The amount of coal is not the issue here, because players are DELIBERATELY consuming as much energy as they possibly can.

Well. It makes sense that a player consuming ALL the energy has a difficult time setting up coal power for it. High energy demand should match a high challenge of providing it. That is OK. The only reason it isn't difficult is because solar power subverts that difficulty. Solar is easy to set up for all tiers of scaling, so just liek build more solar right?

There is not enough coal to supply a player for maximum energy consumption, and that is not a problem. There is more than enough coal to handle modest use, and oil power exists to provide an unlimited supply at endgame. It remains to be seen if 10% output plus modules is enough to meet player's needs. If endgame power has to be supplemented by solar, well that's just how it has to be. Even without accumulators a supplement of solar power can reduce the coal burner load by around 60-70%, which is a BIG help.

A normal base using no beacons and no modules is modestly difficult to provide power for. A normal base using efficiency modules is VERY EASY to provide power for. A megabase using speed beacons and productivity modules is VERY HARD to provide power for (at least without solar). That sounds mostly right to me.

[MeduSalem]

How is that different from any belt- or bot-fed automation system in the rest of the factory? Everything except mining requires zero maintenance if you set it up properly. That also goes for steam power by the way, you only have to adjust the fuel input and not the actual electricity generation.
Power does lack complexity though, we tend to rebuild other systems as objectively superior upgrades become available, but whether steam or solar it's always just "build more of the same". In my eyes the proper solution to the supposed "imbalance" of solar panels is to add a new form of lategame power generation, right now they technically are the latest, most high-tech power gen and therefore should be the go-to solution once available.

Well, there have been several discussions about why Belts or Bots or whatever don't need maintenance as well. Conclusion was that one half of the people would like the additional challenge in form of optional difficulty settings, the other half was "no don't touch anything/don't make it more complex". So it's pretty obvious that status quo is going to remain for the time being, because as long as majority isn't crying for a change nothing is going to happen.

For example I'm for a Beginner, Normal and Expert difficulty setting for Factorio. The difficulty not only would effect enemies or resource distribution, but also the complexity of how many things need maintenance, how complex certain recipes get etc.
So in Beginner setting pretty much nothing requires upkeep, but in Expert setting everything should be so hard that you barely manage to survive even if you really know what you are doing.

[Harkonnen604]

Maintenance is ok, but it should happen only when construction bots appear, especially with solar farms that are so tightly packed that you can't reach them by running. That will also add value to building lots of construction bots. I'd say decaying entities (solars in this case) should get some random damage 5-10% hp every random 2-5 minutes, i.e. they should self-damage, but not with every game tick. As for the rest of the factory (belts, etc...) they may also start decaying when pollution is big enough (but again, not sooner than bots appear).

[siggboy]

A megabase is not normal. A megabase uses piles of productivity modules and speed beacons to multiply the input of resources. This can lead to energy costs skyrocketing up to 10x or more of a normal base

If you use PM3+beacons properly you actually save energy per rocket produced compared to not doing it (math has been done elsewhere). The megabase just uses more energy because it does produce more, not because it's done with PM3. (Of course using Eff modules would consume less energy per rocket, but use a lot more raw resources.)

Well. It makes sense that a player consuming ALL the energy has a difficult time setting up coal power for it. High energy demand should match a high challenge of providing it. That is OK. The only reason it isn't difficult is because solar power subverts that difficulty. Solar is easy to set up for all tiers of scaling, so just liek build more solar right?

Yes, but it's the point that I was trying to make: the problem with megasteam it that is scales poorly compared to solar. It's something you do if you want to challenge yourself.

oil power exists to provide an unlimited supply at endgame

Oil power is not viable unless you have tweaked the number of oil patches to be very high. Solar exists to provide unlimited supply at all stages of the game. Oil power is, again, for people going for a challenge and not a good option in the general case.

A normal base using no beacons and no modules is modestly difficult to provide power for. A normal base using efficiency modules is VERY EASY to provide power for. A megabase using speed beacons and productivity modules is VERY HARD to provide power for (at least without solar). That sounds mostly right to me.

Well, the last base I've built needed 500ish MW at peak, and it could make 0.3 rockets/minute. Not a megabase, but providing that power with coal is still viable (I used Nuclear power from a mod, so I haven't tried coal).

I think in what you call "normal" bases, power is not even an issue unless you completely neglect it.

Speaking about (very) easy and difficult: in my view it becomes "difficult" to provide power when you need more than an average coal patch to get the fuel that you need to meet your average demand. So, maybe more than 1 blue belt of coal (that's about 75 mining drills providing about 160 MW). When you need more then you need to have 2 outposts providing fuel, meaning 2 train lines, and one blue belt is not enough any longer to feed the boilers etc. etc. and then it starts to become somewhat "difficult".

At the end it's very different what players view as "easy" and "difficult", so maybe it doesn't make that much sense to talk about that.

[Photoloss]

Well, there have been several discussions about why Belts or Bots or whatever don't need maintenance as well. Conclusion was that one half of the people would like the additional challenge in form of optional difficulty settings, the other half was "no don't touch anything/don't make it more complex". So it's pretty obvious that status quo is going to remain for the time being, because as long as majority isn't crying for a change nothing is going to happen.

For example I'm for a Beginner, Normal and Expert difficulty setting for Factorio. The difficulty not only would effect enemies or resource distribution, but also the complexity of how many things need maintenance, how complex certain recipes get etc.
So in Beginner setting pretty much nothing requires upkeep, but in Expert setting everything should be so hard that you barely manage to survive even if you really know what you are doing.

I think complexity definitely is a plus, but that takes a lot of development effort. That said "complexity", "difficulty" and "tedium" are very different concepts and in my opinion a sandbox-type game should not go to extremes in any of these, at least not the unmodded base game. I would expect vanilla "difficulty settings" to scale all aspects of challenges the game provides as you say - to provide roughly equal challenge regardless of whatever unique skill advantages a specific player may have - but for now Factorio has only one balance level. In this context I don't see a massive need for improvement regarding the mechanics of solar power compared to other aspects of the game and would rather see the devs implement actual new content. Possibly including a "Dark Souls enters the Industrial Age" difficulty setting for the so inclined

[Qon]

The balance problem is that vanilla coal patches are not enough for a megabase. Nerfing solar is treating the symptoms instead of the cause.

That's true, but maybe the problem with megasteam is not the lack of coal, but rather that it scales very poorly compared to solar. Solar only requires more space, steam requires more coal supply (and supply is a constant stream of resources). If we had a higher tier steam option that would be more coal efficient it would easily become the superior option due to it being a lot more compact and easier to expand.

I agree that nerfing solar (in whatever way) is duct-taping a solution together (and it's probably not going to work out anyway). You don't even have to touch solar if you provide more viable, scaling, alternatives.

I hate to disagree, but even if the coal patches were almost endless and even if there were a more efficient boiler/steam engine it wouldn't make Steam power more attractive late game (that said I'm a Steam Guy and I absolutely refuse using Solar Power because of how boring and cheaty it is).

In my opinion the problem is that people clearly see that Solar Power is overpowered but choose to live with it for convenience sake.

Ok so you think that endless steam is worse than endless solar. Why? Let's see:

Using Solar Power is better in the long run because it only has to be set up once and provides free energy for all eternity without requiring you to interfere every now and then.

Sounds a lot like steam with effectivly endless coal patches to me.

It doesn't require you to build any clever maintainance production circles that you have to expand together with the Power Plant to prevent power death spirals or performance from degrading over time or anything else along the line that keeps the energy coming at max output. It's a real "no brainer", just like the other big thread says.

So steam is worse because it is more complex? It is cheap, compact, reliable at night. Sounds like it has the advantages for expert players who can handle the comlexity.

Death spirals are solved by burner inserters and solar powered coal mines and coal train stations. Because small scale constant drain of inserters and efficiency moduled miners separated from the main grid is the kind of thing solar is actually better for since it requires no logistics and where the small output is not a problem.

Nothing degrades in steam. If your coal patch edges depletes then your coal patch wasn't large and rich enough long term, that's all. Get more, richer and bigger patches. Preferably from the start through the magic of planning ahead to avoid doing the maintenance. If you don't like finding more coal patches then maybe increase their size instead of playing with medium sized coal. Or get a mod like RSO that increases size with distance. Or suggest bigger patches with distance as the balancing suggestion or similar suggestion that solves the cause instead of the symptoms.

You must really dislike the complexity then since that is the biggest disadvantage? But you dislike solar because it is too simple? You aren't mentioning pollution or CPU performance so I guess those are not your primary concern.

So it's basically the "build once, forget about that the energy part even exists" that is the convincing factor from which people don't want to step back anymore since Solar Power is now so conveniently lackluster that majority doesn't want to change anything about it. It's like if people would be used to being gifted with free fuel just because they invested in a much more expensive Ferrari. How dare someone even suggesting that you have to put additional work into it to keep the car in motion. The same with Solar Power... It never required any maintenance in the first place and now if anyone just dares to say that it should because it's absolutely unrealistic and unbalanced that it currently doesn't require anything it will be dismissed almost immediately as "you want to make things more complicated for the sake of it".

People avoided steam because it was not blueprintable and coal ran out too easily. 0.13 solves both. I think steam is superior for large scale production if your coal patches are big enough and terrain segmentation is low enough (when it's not bugged anymore) to give you any reasonably long shores. I think it's fair that steam being better for high energy production and having a lower initial cost is more complex as a tradeoff. That's balance.