Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Place to discuss the game balance, recipes, health, enemies mining etc.

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby vanatteveldt » Thu Feb 16, 2017 1:16 pm

Frightning wrote:Steel furnaces are no more fuel efficient than Stone furnaces atm, they just consume fuel and produced smelted products at twice the rate of a Stone furnace. The entire point of Electric furnaces (outside of trying to 'go green' and minimize pollution and fuel usage), is that they have module slots and can interact with Beacons.


Another plus of electric furnaces is that they are logistically easier: you don't have to mess with fuel lines, and you can generate the power anywhere instead of having to bring coal and ore together. If you smelt in your outposts (to double train capacity) electric is easier than having trains refuel the smelters...
vanatteveldt
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 728
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:44 am

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby thereaverofdarkness » Sun Feb 19, 2017 9:49 am

Frightning wrote:Steel furnaces are no more fuel efficient than Stone furnaces atm, they just consume fuel and produced smelted products at twice the rate of a Stone furnace. The entire point of Electric furnaces (outside of trying to 'go green' and minimize pollution and fuel usage), is that they have module slots and can interact with Beacons.

Steel furnaces are twice as efficient as stone furnaces. They take the same amount of time to burn through a unit of fuel, and smelt twice as many items in that time.
User avatar
thereaverofdarkness
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:07 am

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby FasterJump » Tue Mar 07, 2017 5:08 pm

In my opinion the size change of the furnace is not a surprise.
Burner mining drills and steel furnaces are 2x2
Electric mining drills and electric furnaces are 3x3
Electric stuff takes more space.
FasterJump
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
 
Posts: 50
Joined: Sat Jul 09, 2016 11:43 am

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby Yoyobuae » Tue Mar 07, 2017 6:31 pm

Frightning wrote:Steel furnaces are no more fuel efficient than Stone furnaces atm, they just consume fuel and produced smelted products at twice the rate of a Stone furnace...

But that's makes them more fuel efficient... Need half as many steel furnaces, or they need to run for half as long. Either way it saves on total amount of fuel consumed.
Yoyobuae
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:04 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby impetus maximus » Tue Mar 07, 2017 7:16 pm

when online, i usually prepare for electric from the start. that way the owner/players have an easy swap of a steel/brick furnace, for electric should they choose.
just swap the furnace, and the long handle for a yellow inserter. you're back up and running.

electric.prep.png
electric.prep.png (322.75 KiB) Viewed 1222 times


Rahjital wrote:I don't think the size should be changed. Electric furnaces are not an upgrade to steel furnaces but an alternative. Until you have modules, they are inferior in almost every aspect, but on the other hand, they allow you to reduce your coal usage and (with solar panels) pollution release. The size adds another into considering whether you want to change or not.


agree the size should not be changed.

i did a test of running a coal furnace, vs a steel furnace. 100 pieces of wood netted only 551 plates using an electric furnace/steam via wood.
100 pieces of wood, and steel furnace netted 779 plates using coal + steam for the electric inserters. with 2 lvl 2 efficiency modules (-80% consumption) i got 2275 with an electric furnace.
without at least 2 lvl 1 modules, electric furnaces are a downgrade IMO.

i usually stick to steel furnaces. gives me an excuse to run another locomotive. :P
User avatar
impetus maximus
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:07 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby thereaverofdarkness » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:40 am

Modules make anything stronger. Not putting module slots on the steel furnace is the problem. It's a mid-tech building, it should have at least two module slots. With even one slot, it'll beat the electric furnace in overall efficiency.
User avatar
thereaverofdarkness
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:07 am

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby Yoyobuae » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:47 am

Feels kinda weird putting modules into a burner powered machine though. ;)
Yoyobuae
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 310
Joined: Fri Nov 04, 2016 11:04 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby impetus maximus » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:48 am

Yoyobuae wrote:Feels kinda weird putting modules into a burner powered machine though. ;)

agreed
User avatar
impetus maximus
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 891
Joined: Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:07 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby SyncViews » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:07 am

Yeah the 80% energy reduction is really strong.

Id be all for a coal furnace that could have modules. I also wouldnt mind it having a small energy requirment so doesnt feel odd (power for the control stuff, fuel to melt stuff and give steel carbon).
SyncViews
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
 
Posts: 161
Joined: Thu Apr 21, 2016 3:17 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby Xeorm » Mon Mar 13, 2017 6:59 pm

Would also like to chime in that I find the space differences to be a good thing. Main reason being that they should promote a major redesign in how your smithy works compared to the burner alternatives, while also keeping them from being done too early. They're really not an improvement at all over steel furnaces unless you either A) have modules, B) have moved completely away from steam or C) need the ease of not needing the fuel on site.

The size difference helps to really point out to the player "These things are different"
Xeorm
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
 
Posts: 104
Joined: Wed May 28, 2014 7:11 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby DerivePi » Mon Mar 13, 2017 9:03 pm

So you join a multiplayer game and you notice a line of coal mixing with a line of ore being fed into a group of smelters. Being early game, these smelters are stone but someone has the idea that at some point these smelters will be replaced with electric furnaces and has allowed the extra space that will be required to shift to electric.

On the pro side
- when you replace these furnaces you don't have to worry about running out of coal from the current, already setup, coal mine (and plastic is made on the other side of your factory and delivered by locomotives that run on solar?)
The downsides
- The configuration doesn't leave space for beacons that would make productivity modules of any value in an array of furnaces
- To balance with a steel furnace setup, you need a third more length along your setup as well as the widthwise spacing (or more appropriately you lose 50% of your stone furnaces along the run - take out 3 stone furnaces and replace with 2 electric - Of course you didn't upgrade to "throw away" steel furnaces! And, of course you didn't waste that valuable early game lengthwise space between stone furnaces like all those youtubers show because wooden poles are so expensive!)
- Electric is half as efficient so your coal equivalent consumption will double unless you immediately add efficiency modules
- you probably have or are close to having robots by this point of the game and clearing and reconfiguring the smelters with a beacon setup is not a big deal

In short, there are good reasons for using electric furnaces. But, there is not a good reason for leaving space for electric furnaces in your initial furnace array. Save the space for other things.
User avatar
DerivePi
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Thu May 29, 2014 4:51 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby Silba » Fri Apr 14, 2017 2:51 pm

I almost agree.

A new player will be caught off guard and will cause him to rebuild his smeltery or build a new one somewhere else, some may find this fun and others might hate it BUT after doing it for the first time you can figure out how to build a furnace system that can accept the upgrade without much effort and even 100% replacable if you dont care much about space, which... considering an infinite world... no one should.

I think the big size is justified as it smelts alot faster and can accept modules.
Silba
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
 
Posts: 16
Joined: Mon Mar 20, 2017 4:24 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby Deadly-Bagel » Wed Apr 19, 2017 2:17 pm

And it's not a "direct upgrade" anyway. Pretty sure they're actually just as fast as Steel Furnaces, you just don't need to provide fuel and you can use modules at the cost of being bigger. It's not an upgrade, it's an alternative. If you want to deconstruct your carefully planned smelting line then that's up to you but it's not a requirement to proceed.
Money might be the root of all evil, but ignorance is the heart.
User avatar
Deadly-Bagel
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Wed Jul 13, 2016 10:12 am

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby Frightning » Thu Apr 20, 2017 3:55 am

Deadly-Bagel wrote:And it's not a "direct upgrade" anyway. Pretty sure they're actually just as fast as Steel Furnaces, you just don't need to provide fuel and you can use modules at the cost of being bigger. It's not an upgrade, it's an alternative. If you want to deconstruct your carefully planned smelting line then that's up to you but it's not a requirement to proceed.

Electric furnaces are the same speed as Steel furnaces, and they have the same energy costs too, (but Boilers are only 50% efficient, so Electric furnaces end up being no more energy efficient than Stone furnaces, which have the same energy cost and half the crafting speed of Steel furnaces). The 3x3 size is important for Beacon-based layouts, 2x2 would really mess up the nice Beacon-Furnace-Beacon alternating lines setup (which is very efficient). The size shift is easy to handle if you care to 'upgrade' to Electric furnaces (only worth it without a Beacon-ready layout if you plan to use modules (even tier 1 Efficiency modules are strong enough that you can beat Steel furnaces for energy efficiency with Boilers since you can cut energy costs to 40%, which means 80% as much fuel consumed by Boilers versus directly by Steel furnaces; this is then cut in half by tier 2 Efficiency modules, down to 40%).
Frightning
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 677
Joined: Fri Apr 29, 2016 5:27 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby darkfrei » Thu Apr 20, 2017 7:10 am

Are we need two furnaces, one 2x2 and with 25% of full speed and second 3x3 with 100% speed?
User avatar
darkfrei
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:11 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby TRICOMMANDER » Wed May 31, 2017 5:52 pm

i personally like electric furnaces the way they are, sure they may be bigger than steel furnaces but they have the advantage of not needing a supply of fuel which can be a pain to supply just so you can make steel for a recipie, whereas steel furnaces appear to be more suited to MASS smelting aka turning iron ore into plates.
basically they both have there advantages and disadvantages which make them unique.
TRICOMMANDER
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
 
Posts: 2
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 5:29 pm

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby thereaverofdarkness » Wed May 31, 2017 8:01 pm

I think electric furnaces are decent if you're willing to concede that steel furnaces are overpowered from the baseline. Setting the crafting speed the same on both and saying the electric furnace gets its leg up from its module slots isn't fair, that means those who choose to use steel furnaces lack choice.

Solution: decrease steel furnace crafting speed, increase its energy cost, and give it module slots.
Stone furnace: CS: 1, Power: 180kW fuel, energy per crafting second: 180kJ, modules: 1
Steel furnace: CS: 1.5, Power: 270kW fuel, energy per crafting second: 180kJ, modules: 2
Electric furnace: CS: 2, Power: 180kW electric, energy per crafting second: 180kJ, modules: 3

There's a smoother system. There's still room to opt for the steel furnace as it is smaller and uses fuel instead of electricity, but the electric furnace is objectively stronger even though it isn't objectively better. I also added 1 module slot to stone furnace, because why restrict people.
User avatar
thereaverofdarkness
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 329
Joined: Wed Jun 01, 2016 5:07 am

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby Factorie » Tue Jun 06, 2017 1:20 am

I'd love to just be able to plop an electric furnace over a steel furnace instead of completely having to redesign everything
Factorie
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
 
Posts: 100
Joined: Wed May 31, 2017 2:29 am
Location: United States

Re: Supression of the size shift of electric furnaces

Postby darkfrei » Tue Jun 06, 2017 4:46 am

Factorie wrote:I'd love to just be able to plop an electric furnace over a steel furnace instead of completely having to redesign everything

Offshore smelting is much better, you can always make it twice bigger. The first smelting needs less place, but can't be useful later.
User avatar
darkfrei
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
 
Posts: 748
Joined: Thu Nov 20, 2014 11:11 pm

Previous

Return to Balancing

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests