Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Place to discuss the game balance, recipes, health, enemies mining etc.
Post Reply
Theikkru
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:18 pm
Contact:

Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by Theikkru » Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:43 am

In the oil change discussion, I proposed keeping light oil in basic processing alongside petroleum as a potential tweak to the FFF (now 0.17.60) changes, and provided arguments in support (see these posts). I attempted to show that light oil would be a lesser departure from the FFF than heavy oil, but was sidetracked when V453000 showed more interested in heavy oil. Now that both have been rejected in favor of the FFF changes, however, I believe the light oil option warrants another look. I would like to represent my proposal here, with modifications to account for what I learned from V453000 during the FFF discussions, and I invite any devs to prod at or add premises to this proposal so that I may accurately refine it (hyuk hyuk) if possible. I trust that my record during past discussion will vouch for the claim that I will not bite.

First, some premises, either from my own arguments or what I was able to gather during discussion:
Theikkru wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:17 pm
  • New players will still have to redo most if not all of the oil production chain once advanced processing hits, and there is little to no hinting or foreshadowing whatsoever to suggest that this will happen (i.e. planning ahead is not really an option). This greatly diminishes the logistical advantage of delaying the multiple outputs balancing problem that the revision is supposed to afford.
  • The new player is still going to be hit with just about as large a wall of new recipes and production lines alongside the multiple outputs problem, only now it will involve more advanced recipes such as processing units and lubricant-related products rather than simpler ones such as plastic and sulfur.
  • The association of oil with the multiple outputs problem is weakened (thematic problem).
  • Players are still taught the "wrong" way of doing things initially, especially for solid fuel now that only the petroleum one will even be available at basic processing.
  • Solid fuel got thrown under the bus. People will be even less motivated to touch it at all, now that it must use precious petroleum gas, and are far more likely to just rush rocket fuel.
V453000 wrote:
Sun Jul 28, 2019 2:57 pm
PG + Light means the only reason you need AOP is Lubricant - that's a really weak non-high-tech motivator.
V453000 wrote:
Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pm
None of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.
  • Oil refining should not block up and jam the factory without a good solution available (and voiding resources does not qualify as "good").
  • Proposals should attempt to minimize logistical complexity (and associated tedium) around the basic oil~chemical science zone of the tech tree.
Since I was not given a direct answer as to why the Petroleum+Light proposal failed, I can only infer from the general answer provided. Since the original proposal only involved one extra recipe over the 0.17.60 implementation, I assume that complexity and tedium were not the factors responsible, leaving pacing. I surmise from continuing discussion that, specifically regarding the petroleum+light proposal, the mechanic where solid fuel would push the player towards advanced oil processing by encouraging chemical science research amounts to a form of "rushing" advanced oil in order to solve the problem, and therefore suffers from poor pacing, insomuch as the player is unable to wallow between chemical science and advanced oil, should they so choose. Given this, and the considerations above, I present my modified proposal as follows:
  • Restore an output of light oil (25~30) alongside petroleum gas for basic oil processing.
  • Change the sulfur recipe to use solid fuel (~2) instead of petroleum gas.
  • Increase the sulfur requirement of chemical science packs (to 3~4).
  • Change rocket fuel to require heavy oil (5~10) instead of light oil.
This would incur a total cost of 1 additional recipe (solid fuel from light oil) re-introduced to the basic oil tech zone, and 1 additional recipe introduced to the chemical science production chain (solid fuel from oil products). Here, I'll also include some optional additional changes that may complement the above and mitigate the costs, should they prove prohibitive: (Note: these are not all mutually compatible)
  • Change chemical science to require solid fuel instead of sulfur (at the increased cost).
  • Change chemical science to require solid fuel instead of engines (and increase its cost instead of sulfur).
  • Change chemical science to require plastic instead of advanced circuits.
  • Increase the petroleum solid fuel recipe cost (to 25~30).
  • Restore a small oil deposit near the starting area.
This proposal improves over both 0.17.60 and the original proposal in that:
  • sulfur no longer competes with plastic for petroleum, and oil product use cases are better balanced in general.
  • solid fuel gains a purpose as an intermediate product.
  • sulfur helps balance oil usage through solid fuel.
  • some measure of realism is restored, in that sulfur is harvested from processed oil products, rather than petroleum gas.
  • rocket fuel remains as a high-tech recipe locked behind advanced oil.
  • players are no longer rushed through chemical science to advanced oil as hastily, since both solid fuel and sulfur can balance oil product consumption; output jams can only occur under situations of high plastic usage and low sulfur/fuel usage, which are rare (and effectively limited to mass module 1s, mass stack inserters, mass substations, or mass electric furnaces, while also NOT doing anything that uses fuel or sulfur in quantity).
At the same time, this proposal retains all previous advantages, such as:
Theikkru wrote:
Fri Jul 26, 2019 4:17 pm
  • introducing the multiple outputs problem alongside oil, allowing players to tackle it early on without too many distracting recipes involved.
  • not involving a significant increase of logistical burden over petroleum only basic oil processing.
  • hinting at the introduction of additional fluids with the geometry of the refinery.
  • reducing the amount of renovation necessary to account for advanced processing.
  • highlighting solid fuel when it is most helpful.
  • providing two solid fuel recipes for comparison of efficiency.
  • providing a straightforward method (chemical science pack solid fuel usage) of balancing oil product usage that works until advanced processing and cracking are available, but cannot supplant them.
  • better balancing the total output of basic processing as compared to advanced processing or coal liquefaction, without making it too attractive by increasing the petroleum output.
  • leaving more choice and initiative in the player's hands regarding pursuit of efficiency and planning ahead in order to save trouble down the road. (New players should be rewarded for planning ahead.)
I posit that this list of advantages outweighs the costs of implementation. If I have failed to account for some factor in my analysis, please advise.

Footnote: I present this as a differential change from 0.17.60, as I assume the devs have found sufficient justification for their decision to follow through with FFF#305. Any proposed changes must therefore prove their superiority against the current implementation, using relevant premises as I am attempting here, rather than refer to past versions as precedent.

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 312
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by mmmPI » Fri Aug 02, 2019 9:14 am

Theikkru wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:43 am
[*]Change the sulfur recipe to use solid fuel (~2) instead of petroleum gas.
I wanted to highlight that one, because i think it has not yet been proposed in discussion around FFF304 and 305. ( i might be wrong but i read carefully the whole thing).

It could function with the implementation you propose, but not only and may open new reflexions. I wonder if this is realistic, but as a gameplay solution, it makes a lot of sense to me.

Serenity
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 543
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by Serenity » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:23 am

It's rather prefer that you could make sulfur directly from whatever you want like SF, but with different efficiencies so that HO gives the most and PG the least. Sulfur requirements are pretty low, at least at the beginning, so it doesn't really matter if someone wants to make it from PG. And the difference could be made very small.

User avatar
Deadlock989
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1077
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by Deadlock989 » Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:38 am

This is sort of what I'm working with in my WIP overhaul mod. PG > green coke ("dirty solid fuel") > refined coke ("solid fuel") + sulphur. You can burn green coke directly but it's extra-polluting. Overall there are actually fewer recipes than vanilla, even though there's a new item, because you don't need all the solid fuel recipe variants. Obviously the one in, one out BOP nerf is toast, because it's tedious af.

Haven't finished testing it out yet. Plan B is that oil refineries just chuck out masses of sulphur whenever they do any kind of cracking/refining and dealing with it all becomes the problem.

Theikkru
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by Theikkru » Fri Aug 02, 2019 8:06 pm

Serenity wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 11:23 am
It's rather prefer that you could make sulfur directly from whatever you want like SF, but with different efficiencies so that HO gives the most and PG the least. Sulfur requirements are pretty low, at least at the beginning, so it doesn't really matter if someone wants to make it from PG. And the difference could be made very small.
The reason I didn't go with this option is it introduces several more recipes to the mix, going against the goal of simplification in that tech zone. I think the solid fuel efficiencies are close enough that what I proposed will balance things pretty well, and exact costs can always be tweaked later to adjust.

jodokus31
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 492
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by jodokus31 » Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:34 am

Theikkru wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:43 am
output jams can only occur under situations of high plastic usage and low sulfur/fuel usage, which are rare (and effectively limited to mass module 1s, mass stack inserters, mass substations, or mass electric furnaces, while also NOT doing anything that uses fuel or sulfur in quantity).
I read somewhere, that sulfur could be used as ingredient for concrete

wobbycarly
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 29
Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2019 4:00 am
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by wobbycarly » Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:40 am

jodokus31 wrote:
Sat Aug 03, 2019 11:34 am
Theikkru wrote:
Fri Aug 02, 2019 5:43 am
output jams can only occur under situations of high plastic usage and low sulfur/fuel usage, which are rare (and effectively limited to mass module 1s, mass stack inserters, mass substations, or mass electric furnaces, while also NOT doing anything that uses fuel or sulfur in quantity).
I read somewhere, that sulfur could be used as ingredient for concrete
Sulphur makes more sense to me than iron ore in concrete.

User avatar
Deadlock989
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1077
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:41 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by Deadlock989 » Sat Aug 03, 2019 12:19 pm

That would push concrete behind oil processing, and there are a lot of mods where concrete is an ingredient for building large machines like oil refineries. Circular loop.

"Refined" concrete, maybe.

The iron ore in regular concrete should so obviously be an iron stick that it's barely worth mentioning.

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1447
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by BlueTemplar » Sat Aug 03, 2019 4:12 pm

See another Concrete rework here :
viewtopic.php?p=446003#p446003
(Though I guess it could be spun off in its own mod ?)

Yandersen
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 85
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 6:54 am
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by Yandersen » Sat Aug 03, 2019 8:40 pm

I am not sure that asking devs to change anything now will have any effect - we tried to fight with new changes for half a month with no result. Maybe let's try to present an example mod for them to judge the alternative solution?

Here is my proposition: viewtopic.php?f=33&t=74062

Theikkru
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by Theikkru » Mon Aug 05, 2019 11:29 am

Another aspect of this proposal I find noteworthy: that having researched advanced oil processing alone does not mandate its immediate implementation.
In the unlikely event that a player does elect one of the dedicated mass production options (e.g. mass module 1s) that may result in an oil product imbalance, chemical science would still temporarily alleviate said imbalance and guide the player to advanced oil research. However, the player is in no way obligated to address advanced oil processing itself at this point. Because cracking is also made available through advanced oil research, the construction of a light oil cracking line would present itself as a straightforward and thorough solution to the immediate imbalance, leaving the player to tackle the remainder of advanced oil at his or her leisure.

Theikkru
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 187
Joined: Wed Mar 27, 2019 2:18 pm
Contact:

Re: Basic oil processing proposal (differential from 0.17.60): reintroduce light, sulfur from solid

Post by Theikkru » Mon Aug 12, 2019 8:32 am

Got off my bum and made a mod out of this proposal. I cobbled it together by using other oil mods as templates (and not by learning the syntax), so fingers crossed that I've worked out all the kinks.

Post Reply

Return to “Balancing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users