Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Place to discuss the game balance, recipes, health, enemies mining etc.
Saemj
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:15 pm
Contact:

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Post by Saemj » Sun Apr 21, 2019 8:50 am

Between having to widen the smelting array for electric furnaces and electric ones having the same smelting speed as steel furnaces (why bother?) i have never used a single electric furnace in 400 + hours of playing Factorio.

vanatteveldt
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 913
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:44 am
Contact:

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Post by vanatteveldt » Sun Apr 21, 2019 10:25 pm

The two reasons for using electric surfaces are (1) to make the logistics easier (no coal needed, so no use to have a belt/lane of coal, and especially easier to steel or smallish quantities of e.g. bricks) and (2) to use modules. If you already have coal nearby and no need for modules (yet), there is no compelling reason to switch to electric.

User avatar
thereaverofdarkness
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 522
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:07 am
Contact:

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Post by thereaverofdarkness » Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:38 am

The entire reason for switching to electric is that the steel furnaces haven't been graced with module slots. That's not good game design in my book, that's fake difficulty by way of shoehorning gameplay and reducing player options.

I say the stone and electric furnaces are well-balanced. But steel furnaces are OP in the early game. Nerf them to 1.5x stone furnace output and give them 2 module slots.

Hannu
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 652
Joined: Thu Apr 28, 2016 6:27 am
Contact:

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Post by Hannu » Wed Apr 24, 2019 10:26 am

thereaverofdarkness wrote:
Wed Apr 24, 2019 5:38 am
The entire reason for switching to electric is that the steel furnaces haven't been graced with module slots. That's not good game design in my book, that's fake difficulty by way of shoehorning gameplay and reducing player options.
There is clearly 3 tiers with increasing performance. An there is excellent option to not use highest tier if player feels them overpowered or boringly simple.
I say the stone and electric furnaces are well-balanced. But steel furnaces are OP in the early game. Nerf them to 1.5x stone furnace output and give them 2 module slots.
Why? In any case player have to build tens of steel furnaces before construction bots. Furnace columns are simple and boring to build, just laborious. Do you really think that game would be more entertaining if players had to build 50 % longer furnace columns? Factorio is based on rapid growth and increases between tiers are in my opinion more moderate than aggressive, at least before fully beaconed and moduled end game production plants. Doubling is in my opinion very good increase. Replacing stone furnaces with steel ones and yellow belts with red give very nice production doubling without tedious rebuilding of smelting. And those who want to use electric furnaces and modules have construction bots when they come actual.

User avatar
Ranger_Aurelien
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 50
Joined: Thu Apr 25, 2019 1:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Post by Ranger_Aurelien » Mon May 27, 2019 6:08 pm

When I build my starting factories I allocate 3x3 just add a "spit" belt next to the basic inserter to deliver the iron to the main belt. AS they start with yellow belts, the coal+ore line is enough to run the line.

By the time we get electric furnaces, we're at red belts, possibly blue belts and having personal roboports. Then it's a quick alt-D, and delete the steel furnace, my "spit" belt and the arm. Then I can CTRL-C a new furnace+inserter, paste across to replace the furnaces. In addition, stopping the coal and putting iron on both sides of the belt, the electrics work great. An Upgrade planner makes short work of increasing belt to blue... particularly with speed modules the electric furnaces can keep up with demands and fill the belts.
-
Ranger Aurelien
"Knowledge Brings Fear" -- Motto of Mars University, Futurama

Seraphendipity
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:26 pm
Contact:

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Post by Seraphendipity » Sat Jun 08, 2019 5:51 pm

My take is that steel furnaces are more efficient than electrics, and perhaps designed that way. If you solve the extra logistical problem of feeding fuel to a line of steel furnaces, you are awarded with a more output (modules taken out of the equation). Additionally, if you have a steam powered base, I remember someone saying that steel furnaces are even more efficient in their coal usage. If that is so, I'm all for that -- I like when there are options, both equally viable and with different pros, instead of "this is X but better". Steel furnaces are "stone furnace but better", but I feel that electric should not be that way, instead being "steel furnaces but different". Thusly, I don't mind the electrics being a size bigger -- it eliminates the logistics of fuel in favor of using the electric lines already placed for inserters as well as giving access to moduls and thus has the tradeoff of space.

Post Reply

Return to “Balancing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users