How to fix module balance

[Hedning1390]

Once again you're using vanilla to base your argument. In my suggestion, rate of output is no longer linked to material efficiency.

I don't think I am. I think I'm using your numbers, however maybe I'm missing something. If I'm wrong please explain how with your numbers switching out a speed module for an efficiency module will make your assemblers produce faster and/or with higher productivity.

You said above:

5 prod/5 spd/2 eff
Productivity: 150%
Output rate: 272%
Energy cost: 69%

So for clarity lets compare it to something like 5 prod/7 spd/0 eff?

[thereaverofdarkness]

So for clarity lets compare it to something like 5 prod/7 spd/0 eff?

5 prod/7 spd
Productivity: 150%
Output rate: 366%
Energy cost: 625%

Perhaps I misunderstood you.

Adding more speed modules will always increase the rate at which items come out of your factory, and reducing speed modules will always decrease it. Are you asking for efficiency modules to increase your rate of production? If the only thing you care about is putting down more speed modules, and you're okay with plopping down that many solar panels, that's really on you. It doesn't seem like an optimal strategy to me, and I really don't think you'd disagree with me if you actually played the game with balanced modules.

The problem in Vanilla is that increased resource efficiency goes hand in hand with increased rate of output, and it's multiplicative so that the actual rate of output goes up much more than if you had only used speed modules. So you're not just adding speed beacons for a tiny benefit, you're getting a huge benefit from them and your resource patches last longer. In my suggestion, you'd be adding speed modules to get what feels like a diminishing return on added throughput, while your resources deplete ever faster as your mining drills burn through ore patches and you spend materials on more speed modules and solar panels. You'd reach a point where the resources deplete faster than you can craft, place, and power all the speed modules. It's sub-optimal at the extreme, but at some lower point you can gain a strong advantage that is worth pursuing. Where you draw the line is up to you, but it no longer pushes you to the very edge to get an optimum build.


Now with the partial cumulative effect I suggested, the actual point of maximum throughput happens with a mix of productivity and speed modules, however that peak point happens with almost all speed modules and it's only slightly higher than only speed modules.

[Hedning1390]

The problem in Vanilla is that increased resource efficiency goes hand in hand with increased rate of output, and it's multiplicative so that the actual rate of output goes up much more than if you had only used speed modules.

In vanilla you get diminishing returns already The first speed beacon you add increase speed from 0.5 to 1.125 which is more than double. The 8th beacon increases it from 4.875 to 5.5 which is like 10%. Also for clarity the multiplication is between items in a chain. Switching out productivity for speed makes each assembler produce more.

Productivity is the most important stat. With your idea of opening up beacons for productivity the question is how many productivity modules can we fit before speed gets too slow. It's always going to be speed which is the limiting factor. If I switch out the efficiency modules for speed modules my factories are faster and maybe that allows me one more productivity module. Looking at your example I would have 50% productivity and a crafting speed of 4.575. That's better than today (40% and 5.5) for most products and easily worth the power cost compared to having my factory be 35% slower (basically 35% larger) with the 2 efficiency modules.

Factorio is about solving logistics issues and all logistics issues get easier if you compact your production. Bots get more efficient, belts get more efficient and easier to layout, even trains benefit from smaller factory footprints. I've avoided talking about ups so far, but having fewer moving parts is really important. If building more solar allows me to do the same with 50 belt tiles and 10 inserters as I otherwise would need 100 belt tiles and 20 inserters for I'm going to build more solar.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Looking at your example I would have 50% productivity and a crafting speed of 4.575. That's better than today (40% and 5.5)

With 5 productivity and 7 speed? No, you'd have a crafting speed of 3.05 in a yellow assembler. It's considerably lower.

366% is the rate of output including the extra from productivity. If you include that amount in the vanilla 4/8 setup, you get 366% output vs. 616% output.

[Hedning1390]

Ok, I didn't realize "output rate" was combined crafting speed and productivity. Still 35% better than the one with the 2 efficiency modules.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Still 35% better than the one with the 2 efficiency modules.

You're still giving the same old argument that reducing energy cost is never worth it when you could instead increase output. Either there's a point at which it becomes viable, or you're locked into the mindset that only output rate matters. In the second case, there's no point debating you about it but others will disagree with you. You're fine to only put speed modules on your factory. That's a choice. As long as it isn't the only optimal choice, then my work is done.

[Hedning1390]

I'm not locked into anything, but if you disagree which of my reasons do you disagree with? Do you disagree that Factorio is about solving logistics problems? Do you disagree that all logistics problems are located in your factory and not in expanding solar? Do you disagree that building more compact assembly lines makes your logistics easier and more efficient?

[bobucles]

A thousand efficiency modules will give your base 40% more energy to work with.
4 productivity modules will give your base 40% more nuclear fuel cells to work with.

Efficiency modules will never ever ever ever beat productivity in terms of resource gain. It's silly to even try.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I'm not locked into anything, but if you disagree which of my reasons do you disagree with? Do you disagree that Factorio is about solving logistics problems? Do you disagree that all logistics problems are located in your factory and not in expanding solar? Do you disagree that building more compact assembly lines makes your logistics easier and more efficient?

I don't disagree with any of that. What I disagree with is that with my proposed changes, nobody would use efficiency modules, as you suggested. You have been suggesting that with my proposed changes, the modules are fundamentally unbalanced and that there is one optimal way to set them up. I disagree, I think that others will disagree and choose different module setups than the one you think is best. In fact not only do I think this, but I have provided calculations to demonstrate the viability of other setups. Every time you have disagreed with the viability of those numbers, it was based on assumptions that all unstated numbers were at vanilla values, despite me having stated plenty of times what they are.

A thousand efficiency modules will give your base 40% more energy to work with.
4 productivity modules will give your base 40% more nuclear fuel cells to work with.

You mean 400% more energy to work with?

4 productivity modules, with my proposed changes, will only yield 40% more nuclear fuel in the long run. They will decrease the rate at which your mining drills pump out nuclear fuel and require you to have more mining drills and more uranium outposts to achieve the same rate of output. Efficiency can net you 400% more nuclear fuel in the long run. Please stop furthering this ignorance of what I keep re-iterating.

[Hedning1390]

I don't disagree with any of that. What I disagree with is that with my proposed changes, nobody would use efficiency modules, as you suggested. You have been suggesting that with my proposed changes, the modules are fundamentally unbalanced and that there is one optimal way to set them up. I disagree, I think that others will disagree and choose different module setups than the one you think is best. In fact not only do I think this, but I have provided calculations to demonstrate the viability of other setups. Every time you have disagreed with the viability of those numbers, it was based on assumptions that all unstated numbers were at vanilla values, despite me having stated plenty of times what they are.

People use efficiency modules today and think they are good. Of course if you buff them some people will still use them and think they are good. Doesn't mean they are.

Why are you saying I'm using vanilla numbers when I am not? I've never used vanilla numbers. Because you kept claiming that I even asked you to make a calculation specifically for 0 eff modules to make things crystal clear. What else am I missing now? Your own calculation showed that having 0 eff modules instead of 2 resulted in a 35% increase in output rate for a 9x increase in power usage. You are exchanging power for speed, exactly like it already is, just with the eff module having a bigger impact. And looking at your proposal the efficiency module only reduces power consumption, which again isn't worth the hit to productivity and speed. With your numbers the impact of efficiency modules isn't big enough to be worth the slots they steal from the other modules (for the reasons stated above which you agree with), and your secondary proposition to make the impact bigger by making solar 5 times more tedious to build is a horrible suggestion (again for reasons already stated).

Your non-vanilla numbers that I used:
Your original suggestion:

Efficiency
Energy: -30% / -45% / -75%

Or in other words efficiency only gives you power for the sacrifice of not using other modules in its slot.

Your later calculations

5 prod/5 spd/2 eff
Productivity: 150%
Output rate: 272%
Energy cost: 69%

5 prod/7 spd
Productivity: 150%
Output rate: 366%
Energy cost: 625%

Or in other words by sacrificing speed you save some power.

[bobucles]

You mean 400% more energy to work with?

I wish! Have you ever met a base that could be completely covered with only a thousand modules? That's enough to fill 300 miners. A base with 300 miners is tiny. TINY. So small it shouldn't even have modules. But it doesn't matter because well placed productivity saves MORE energy than efficiency modules. Ever put modules in labs? That's 20% free, FREE energy and it boosts your ENTIRE factory. Can efficiency modules boost your whole factory? No. They can't. You can't make a single target energy reduction as good as an entire factory. You can break all the numbers you want, but all you end up with are broken numbers.

Aside from a few very narrow places of reducing biter aggro, efficiency modules simply aren't good. Maybe a biter boosting mod can make pollution more threatening and thus important to control. But the two main driving forces behind efficiency modules -- energy and biter danger-- are drops in the bucket next to the extreme resource boost from productivity. It simply does not compare.

[Aeternus]

The main users of modules are megabases. If you aren't playing on after launching a rocket, then typically you just need a few modules for the silo. (Some players use modules in labs or other places, but others don't).

To fix the ups problems will require a fluid mechanics overhaul, and possible a similar optimisation of heatpipes. It might be coming for 0.17. (It's listed as a low priority item for 0.17). At that time nuclear might be more attractive for megbases than it currently is.

Depends on how you play. If your intent is very low pollution you may want to invest in some eff1 mods for your mines - those are the heaviest polluters.

And I agree with the fluid mechanics, sadly. Nuke plants slow things down way too much. Almost to the point that I'd mod in a thermal turbine to just get rid of the heat exchangers and tie the turbines directly to the reactors. If possible.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Your own calculation showed that having 0 eff modules instead of 2 resulted in a 35% increase in output rate for a 9x increase in power usage. You are exchanging power for speed, exactly like it already is, just with the eff module having a bigger impact. And looking at your proposal the efficiency module only reduces power consumption, which again isn't worth the hit to productivity and speed.

You're locked into this idea that power consumption doesn't matter. No matter how powerful the efficiency module becomes, you'll never think it's worth using. As I have stated multiple times already, that is your opinion and it's a pretty unimportant opinion to present in this topic unless you can somehow explain why the power cost is objectively unimportant, which you haven't. At best you could say that it's too easy to make more power which I've already discussed. If all you're concerned with is pure, perfect optimization, and you'll crunch the numbers to find exactly perfect ratios of everything (most players will not do this), even then the power generation still costs resources, so there's a point at which a power savings is literally a bigger resource savings than an increase in resource generation is. So you can't keep making this argument that there's no way to buff the efficiency module to make it usable. I already have suggested a point at which it's useful but you refuse to see that because you're locked into this idea that it's not possible. And if I'm misrepresenting your position, I really can't see how I could be expected to interpret it any other way.

You mean 400% more energy to work with?

I wish! Have you ever met a base that could be completely covered with only a thousand modules? That's enough to fill 300 miners. A base with 300 miners is tiny. TINY. So small it shouldn't even have modules.

That's an opinion. But more importantly, the real point here is that the upper limit for savings with efficiency modules is a 400% increase in power to work with. The number of modules it takes is highly dependent on the size of your base, and the actual point you were discussing is the fact that the number of efficiency modules it takes is a far larger number than the number of productivity modules it takes. Let's not get caught up on specific numbers that don't apply to anything.

But it doesn't matter because well placed productivity saves MORE energy than efficiency modules. Ever put modules in labs? That's 20% free, FREE energy and it boosts your ENTIRE factory. Can efficiency modules boost your whole factory? No. They can't. You can't make a single target energy reduction as good as an entire factory. You can break all the numbers you want, but all you end up with are broken numbers.

Aside from a few very narrow places of reducing biter aggro, efficiency modules simply aren't good. Maybe a biter boosting mod can make pollution more threatening and thus important to control. But the two main driving forces behind efficiency modules -- energy and biter danger-- are drops in the bucket next to the extreme resource boost from productivity. It simply does not compare.

You're still caught up on this idea that the productivity gain is only a gain, and you're forgetting the drawback--the rate of production. You don't just reach a resource patch and find the ore neatly bundled up in chests, ready to go. It takes time and energy to mine it, more than anything time, and in that time you could easily set up more mining outposts. Resources are, in a way, unlimited. Increasing the amount you get from the patch does not result in suddenly free wealth out of nowhere, rather it simply makes the patch last longer. If you're reducing the rate of output with productivity modules, then you need more infrastructure, not less, to get the same final rate of outputs. In my suggestion, the speed module is the only module which actually increases the rate at which a machine outputs products, and it simultaneously increases the rate the machine consumes its inputs. To determine if the speed module is worth using, you should primarily look at its material cost versus the cost of putting down more machines. But I feel I've made it abundantly clear that the old problem (speed+productivity=faster than only speed) is very specifically not the case in my suggestion. And since your entire argument can only work if it is the case, I must surmise that you are forgetting what I have stated multiple times in this thread already, or that you haven't read my posts which you are trying to disagree with.

If you want to dispute my specific numbers, please do. But don't dispute the basic idea by ignoring how it works.

Even with my suggestion, there is still the problem that at the top end of your resource chain, adding productivity modules will reduce the size of your infrastructure by reducing input rate more than it reduces output rate. But this problem exists now and is in fact a large part of the reasoning behind me making this post, and my suggestion has so far only worked to help fix it. That I have not fixed it completely is why I want you guys to present ideas on the subject.

[Hedning1390]

No matter how powerful the efficiency module becomes, you'll never think it's worth using.

That's false. I have made a suggestion for buffing efficiency modules that I think would make them worth it in many situations:

Efficiency needs more of a buff. I think eff3 should have something like 5000% to make sure a single module, even in a beacon, will put the machine on it's lowest consumption level.

As I have stated multiple times already, that is your opinion and it's a pretty unimportant opinion to present in this topic unless you can somehow explain why the power cost is objectively unimportant, which you haven't.

Yes I have, and you have agreed with those arguments:

Do you disagree that Factorio is about solving logistics problems? Do you disagree that all logistics problems are located in your factory and not in expanding solar? Do you disagree that building more compact assembly lines makes your logistics easier and more efficient?

I don't disagree with any of that.

As for the raw cost nothing compares to the cost of modules and science. Material cost of anything else is completely irrelevant at this stage.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I think eff3 should have something like 5000% to make sure a single module, even in a beacon, will put the machine on it's lowest consumption level.

BlakeMW's and two of my suggestions already do basically that, except it takes 2, not 1. I liked better the idea that it scales, so more speed modules means you need more efficiency modules to get it done, but each efficiency module is stronger--and energy costs more to justify wanting the energy savings.

But what I've been going on about with you seems to be that you insist making energy more expensive is bad because it's already too hard. Then you say efficiency modules aren't good if you can't just use one per machine to eliminate the cost of 5-8 speed modules. Which is it? Does the energy cost matter or doesn't it?

[Hedning1390]

I think eff3 should have something like 5000% to make sure a single module, even in a beacon, will put the machine on it's lowest consumption level.

BlakeMW's and two of my suggestions already do basically that, except it takes 2, not 1.

First of all it's not 2 v 1. It's 2 v 1/2 (beacons only transfer half of each module). And with 2 eff modules according to your calculations you would have 69% power usage, which is about 3.5 times as much as the minimum which is 20%. So 4 times the slots used and still having 3.5 times as much power usage. Half a module isn't that much when you can have up to 16 in total. It could be worth it on the more basic products.

But what I've been going on about with you seems to be that you insist making energy more expensive is bad because it's already too hard.

I already answered this. It is not that it is hard:

Factorio is about logistics and power have infinite throughput through cables, hence there is no factorio challenge in massively expanding your power. It can easily turn into a tedious chore.

There is no new challenge in centupling your power. It's literally just stamping down more blueprints, unlike other production which provides new logistics challenges at different levels. All nerfing power would do is create a chore while start breaking down the engine, because construction bots has a rather small limit on number of simultaneous construction orders.

When I'm expanding it my other construction stalls, even my personal bots, because the solar expansion is eating up all construction orders.
What's the difficulty here? Why is making me build 5x as much not just a tedium? Like farming xp in a bad rpg.

If I can place a ton more solar panels to get slightly more productivity out of my factory that's a tedium I'd have to suffer through. The question shouldn't be "is improving the efficiency of my factory too boring to be worth it?" It should be "is this fun option more efficient than this other fun option?".

[thereaverofdarkness]

There is no new challenge in centupling your power. It's literally just stamping down more blueprints,

That could be said of any expansion. It costs resources, so you have to find new resource outposts. But if you're at the point in the game where all you're doing is stamping down blueprints and telling bots to build them, then what are you playing for? If you enjoy that, then what's the problem? If you want to stop stamping down solar panel blueprints, why can't you instead build factories that use fewer speed modules?

[Hedning1390]

Like I said in the continuation of that quote:

...unlike other production which provides new logistics challenges at different levels.

Edit: Just for reference of what new late game challenges can be; this station can service 110k iron plates per minute:
https://i.imgur.com/zWiZ133.png

This is a little more complicated to get working and obviously wasn't needed until I needed more than 110k plates per minute, which is fairly late game.
https://i.imgur.com/2nBfwpA.png

Why can't you instead build factories that use fewer speed modules?

Because:

If I can place a ton more solar panels to get slightly more productivity out of my factory that's a tedium I'd have to suffer through.

However

The question shouldn't be "is improving the efficiency of my factory too boring to be worth it?" It should be "is this fun option more efficient than this other fun option?".

[jcranmer]

Productivity is always inherently better than the other modules, and that's because the productivity across the entire chain becomes geometric. If you have modules that reduce the power consumption of each building by 40%, your entire factory uses 40% less power. If you have modules that give a 40% speed boost to every building, your factory gets a 40% speed boost. If you have modules that give a 40% productivity boost to every building, your factory gets a 2000% productivity boost. Even if that productivity boost comes with a 6× energy cost, that's still a 3× boost to items produced per unit energy.

Anyone who comes to understand the geometric nature of productivity then knows there's no point using anything other than productivity modules in machines and speed modules in beacons. A geometric function always beats out a linear function at some point, so making productivity cost more in speed, power, and pollution doesn't change the tradeoff, it just pushes the breakeven point a little further. It's worth pointing out that in vanilla, mixing 3 beacons with speed modules for each assembler with productivities is lower power consumption overall than just the productivity modules (even including the cost of the beacons!).

You're still caught up on this idea that the productivity gain is only a gain, and you're forgetting the drawback--the rate of production. You don't just reach a resource patch and find the ore neatly bundled up in chests, ready to go. It takes time and energy to mine it, more than anything time, and in that time you could easily set up more mining outposts. Resources are, in a way, unlimited. Increasing the amount you get from the patch does not result in suddenly free wealth out of nowhere, rather it simply makes the patch last longer. If you're reducing the rate of output with productivity modules, then you need more infrastructure, not less, to get the same final rate of outputs. In my suggestion, the speed module is the only module which actually increases the rate at which a machine outputs products, and it simultaneously increases the rate the machine consumes its inputs. To determine if the speed module is worth using, you should primarily look at its material cost versus the cost of putting down more machines. But I feel I've made it abundantly clear that the old problem (speed+productivity=faster than only speed) is very specifically not the case in my suggestion. And since your entire argument can only work if it is the case, I must surmise that you are forgetting what I have stated multiple times in this thread already, or that you haven't read my posts which you are trying to disagree with.

The most boring part of Factorio, IMHO, is having to set up new outposts for mining. You have to drive to an appropriate mine, set up the rail tracks to it (woe be he doing this without FARL), drop mining blueprints on the patch, drop the station blueprint, hook all the belts up (if belt-based mining), hook all the track up, set up the station, and then go back to the base. Placing down new solar grids is also boring, but at least I can open up map view, scroll to the edge of my base, and drop down several instances of the solar field and let bots get to it in their own time, it doesn't require that much thought on my own time--or I could have fun trying to design large-scale nuclear power plants (UPS be damned). The logistical challenge of Factorio is the fun part, so saying "resources are unlimited, so why save resources when you have to deal with logistical consequences of over production" isn't going to convince people that productivity isn't powerful.

If you think that it's a problem that people only care to use productivity, you need to find some way to break the productivity-is-geometric, everybody-else-is-linear aspect of modules. Multiplicative effects of multiple modules rather than linear is one way, but the optimal combination is still findable by brute force in very short order. Gating higher-tier module production on something that's truly rare (along the lines of alien artifacts, although those had the annoying problem that they were rare in the midgame when you needed them desperately for research and nothing else and way too common in the endgame, when you couldn't use them fast enough because the only thing you needed was modules) and not amenable to productivity bonuses is another idea (since the modules are too rare to put in everything, you have to strategize about what you actually want to use them for), and probably the one most worth investigating.

It's possible to give people more reasons to use modules much earlier on the game, but that doesn't really solve the geometric/linear discrepancy. Nerfing power production is just asking for another bots/belts brouhaha, especially because it's ultimately harming everybody just to inflict pain on the group of people most likely to shrug it off. And again, it's not touching that discrepancy, just trying to make one factor more painful. As it stands, modules are an endgame-only resource, where things like the cost of production and the difficulty of building power can easily be shrugged off (or factored as just the "cost" of building a megabase). Rebalancing them requires considering their effects at endgame level and the effects in the midgame are damn near inconsequential. As bots/belts shows, you get a lot more positive feedback from the community if instead of asking "how do we punish people for playing the game in the wrong way?" you ask "how can we open up new opportunities for playing the game differently?"

So here's a random idea: what if productivity modules could only be used in buildings that required some form of active cooling using heat pipes? I don't know if mods can do this right now, but it does give more reason to use the heat system which I think is underused in general. It also adds extra constraints in building high-productivity factories which I suspect would be enjoyable to try to work out rather than annoying to deal with, but I obviously haven't play-tested.

[Engimage]

Beacons are the cause of too many problems in the game. However they bring many benefits as well as mental tasks for solving stuff.
Yes modules are well balanced to work without beacons.
And yes they have to be rebalanced to work with them.
And the only issue here is mostly with Efficiency modules not being useful at all.
So the only thing to be addressed here in my opinion is Efficiency modules.
And one thing that could work right from the get go is make Efficiency modules not work additively with speed modules when it comes to energy, but work multiplicatively instead.
It this case for example replacing 1 productivity module with efficiency would instantly reduce energy consumption and pollution by 50%. I can't say that it is really super beneficial for deep endgame but it surely is for the period when you just get beacons and can't afford too much time setting up endless solar fields. I would also consider using them in beacons as well in this case cause you could dramatically decrease beaconised production energy consumption even in end game without touching those productivity modules and replacing some speed modules in beacons with efficiency. In a 8 beacon setup replacing 1 of them with efficiency would net the same result - 50% reduction. And making it 2 of 8 we go even further to a cap of 80% reduction while getting minor production speed decrease.

So this could decrease overall endgame base energy consumption. I think this would be a good thing as it would decrease the (undesired) work placing huge solar fields or build enormous nuclear setups to put you UPS to the limit.