Productivity module balance

Place to discuss the game balance, recipes, health, enemies mining etc.
Qon
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:27 am
Contact:

Re: Productivity module balance

Post by Qon »

jchardin64 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:34 am
AmericanPatriot wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:01 am

many moduled ratios/number of machines needed/rates would get messed up.
Well, that's... kind of the point of making a change? I'm sorry that people would have to redesign BP's for maximum efficiency, but like I said they've made recipe changes requiring BP redesigns in just about every update in the past.
The difference is that it would affect almost every build in the game for a megabase which will be depending on the ratios very precisely and have beacons and prod modules everywhere. And those bases are absolutely massive and the blueprints and the building of the base and planning takes hundreds of hours. Having one part change is manageble. Having all parts change will require those that have invested the most to start over and deconstruct everything.

Some changes they have done might have required some minutes or maybe hours of rework. This would force the people who are the most dedicated to their base to never update. It's not the same thing.

User avatar
AmericanPatriot
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:47 am
Contact:

Re: Productivity module balance

Post by AmericanPatriot »

jchardin64 wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 3:34 am
AmericanPatriot wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 2:01 am

many moduled ratios/number of machines needed/rates would get messed up.
Well, that's... kind of the point of making a change? I'm sorry that people would have to redesign BP's for maximum efficiency, but like I said they've made recipe changes requiring BP redesigns in just about every update in the past.
Recipe updates only change one thing. A module update will change everything.
:D

foamy
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 200
Joined: Mon Aug 26, 2019 4:14 am
Contact:

Re: Productivity module balance

Post by foamy »

AmericanPatriot wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:31 am
jchardin64 wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:00 pm
foamy wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:48 pm
Well.... again, not quite. Mechanically the problem with just increasing the speed penalty is that you still get the synergistic effects. In fact you make adding beacons and speed modules even more necessary to make prod modules worthwhile. And while you don't get the absolute increase on silos going from 3/1 to 4/0 any more, you still have the same issue with 0/4 -> 2/2 or similar, and the effectiveness of your fix varies with the number of speed beacons you can surround a machine with.

Whereas killing the output bonus, removing the speed penalty, and refunding inputs will work uniformly on everything and guarantee that if you want more production from a given set of machines (assuming sufficient inputs) you always need to use speed modules. And if you want more production total (again, assuming sufficient inputs), you need more machines. It kills the emergent synergy and clearly deliniates the roles modules play.
Ah, I see what you mean now. I agree, this is a good way to handle it.
I think that it’s too late to change. The devs aren’t (I hope) going to kill everyone’s blueprints with 1.0
Best time to do it, TBH, but I think you might be overestimating how much breaks. An 8 beacon / 4 prod layout right now has an effective crafting speed of base * 4.4 * 1.4, or base * 6.16; my proposed change would shift that to a flat 5. For twelve beacons, it would go from x8.96 to x7. These changes are significant, but they mostly apply to the output; as long as the next stage also has the same number of production modules, the ratios of the relevant machines don't shift from where they are right now.

The biggest concern would be refineries, but this change wouldn't break them (or anything else) the way a recipe change would. The worst case scenario here is production decline, not a stop or a required re-design, and a production decline in a megabase is countered by the usual principle of 'build another one' :p

User avatar
AmericanPatriot
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 246
Joined: Sun Feb 16, 2020 12:47 am
Contact:

Re: Productivity module balance

Post by AmericanPatriot »

foamy wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 5:25 pm
AmericanPatriot wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:31 am
jchardin64 wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 6:00 pm
foamy wrote:
Tue Aug 11, 2020 5:48 pm
Well.... again, not quite. Mechanically the problem with just increasing the speed penalty is that you still get the synergistic effects. In fact you make adding beacons and speed modules even more necessary to make prod modules worthwhile. And while you don't get the absolute increase on silos going from 3/1 to 4/0 any more, you still have the same issue with 0/4 -> 2/2 or similar, and the effectiveness of your fix varies with the number of speed beacons you can surround a machine with.

Whereas killing the output bonus, removing the speed penalty, and refunding inputs will work uniformly on everything and guarantee that if you want more production from a given set of machines (assuming sufficient inputs) you always need to use speed modules. And if you want more production total (again, assuming sufficient inputs), you need more machines. It kills the emergent synergy and clearly deliniates the roles modules play.
Ah, I see what you mean now. I agree, this is a good way to handle it.
I think that it’s too late to change. The devs aren’t (I hope) going to kill everyone’s blueprints with 1.0
Best time to do it, TBH, but I think you might be overestimating how much breaks. An 8 beacon / 4 prod layout right now has an effective crafting speed of base * 4.4 * 1.4, or base * 6.16; my proposed change would shift that to a flat 5. For twelve beacons, it would go from x8.96 to x7. These changes are significant, but they mostly apply to the output; as long as the next stage also has the same number of production modules, the ratios of the relevant machines don't shift from where they are right now.

The biggest concern would be refineries, but this change wouldn't break them (or anything else) the way a recipe change would. The worst case scenario here is production decline, not a stop or a required re-design, and a production decline in a megabase is countered by the usual principle of 'build another one' :p
I was more thinking in terms of belts. I might have to add one extra machine to every line or maybe 1/2 of the lines.
:D

Qon
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:27 am
Contact:

Re: Productivity module balance

Post by Qon »

foamy wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 5:25 pm
but I think you might be overestimating how much breaks. An 8 beacon / 4 prod layout right now has an effective crafting speed of base * 4.4 * 1.4, or base * 6.16; my proposed change would shift that to a flat 5. For twelve beacons, it would go from x8.96 to x7. These changes are significant, but they mostly apply to the output; as long as the next stage also has the same number of production modules, the ratios of the relevant machines don't shift from where they are right now.
I think you are underestimating what a big difference that is to a really big base though. To stay UPS efficient you want to avoid oversizing any output busses and things like extracting inserters. If the ratios changes then things are going to break or be non-optimally designed. And only UPS optimal designs are considered for the largest projects. Even if it "works" you still probably want to redesign your entire base.

Not saying that it's a bad suggestion or that it definitly shouldn't be considered. But this might mean starting over for the small minority that have the most to lose.

jchardin64
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 28
Joined: Mon Apr 30, 2018 6:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Productivity module balance

Post by jchardin64 »

Qon wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 7:56 pm
I think you are underestimating what a big difference that is to a really big base though. To stay UPS efficient you want to avoid oversizing any output busses and things like extracting inserters. If the ratios changes then things are going to break or be non-optimally designed. And only UPS optimal designs are considered for the largest projects. Even if it "works" you still probably want to redesign your entire base.

Not saying that it's a bad suggestion or that it definitly shouldn't be considered. But this might mean starting over for the small minority that have the most to lose.
Players with megabasses they don't want to rebuild/modify/restart yet could always stay on their current version until they're ready to start a new map.

Qon
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1519
Joined: Thu Mar 17, 2016 6:27 am
Contact:

Re: Productivity module balance

Post by Qon »

jchardin64 wrote:
Fri Aug 14, 2020 5:54 am
Players with megabasses they don't want to rebuild/modify/restart yet could always stay on their current version until they're ready to start a new map.
So potentially forever? If you spend all your thousands of hours in a single save and never start over then you don't become ready to start over. If you start over then your factory output goes down, which is antithetical to the playstyle of megabase building.

ptx0
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 371
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2020 7:16 pm
Contact:

Re: Productivity module balance

Post by ptx0 »

AmericanPatriot wrote:
Thu Aug 13, 2020 12:29 am
I think this is an imaginary problem.
:D these bastards trying to take away my productivity.

it's more productive. speed modules are about being faster, not more productive.

Post Reply

Return to “Balancing”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users