why prod modules are important

[SoShootMe]

Another significant drawback of the prod modules in mining drill is that it increase the pollution per ore by a lot contrary to the mining productivity research.

True, but producing the science packs in order to research mining productivity bonus also creates (quite a lot of) pollution, and after Mining productivity 1 they are fairly/very expensive technologies.

It would create even more pollution if one had placed PM3 in its mining drill while doing the research !

My point was that if pollution is a concern, researching Mining productivity 2 or higher is a relatively long term answer: yes, better than productivity modules but (due to the resource cost) still a bad idea in the short term. On the other hand, if pollution is not a concern, it isn't a "significant drawback" of modules.

The (one off) resource cost and (ongoing) increased power of productivity modules are separate concerns and I think pollution is very minor compared to these. For example, as you described, you can't create many Productivity module 3s for the total resource cost of researching Mining productivity 1-3; far fewer than you would need to fill a reasonable number of electric mining drills to get the same +30% productivity.

[mmmPI]

Another significant drawback of the prod modules in mining drill is that it increase the pollution per ore by a lot contrary to the mining productivity research.

On the other hand, if pollution is not a concern, it isn't a "significant drawback" of modules.

Yes

My point was that if pollution is a concern, researching Mining productivity 2 or higher is a relatively long term answer: yes, better than productivity modules but (due to the resource cost) still a bad idea in the short term.

The (one off) resource cost and (ongoing) increased power of productivity modules are separate concerns and I think pollution is very minor compared to these. For example, as you described, you can't create many Productivity module 3s for the total resource cost of researching Mining productivity 1-3; far fewer than you would need to fill a reasonable number of electric mining drills to get the same +30% productivity.

Edit: i realized i misread the balden part as the reason why you consider research better than productivity module, while instead you are saying that the research is not always a no-brainer if pollution is important that is now clarified it was most likely the source of the misunderstanding, following post was written before

I'm not sure i understand how you articulate the different points, how one behave according to "ressource are scarce" and/or "pollution is not a concern" and their variant pairing. I think one other factor that need to be used for me is "lengh of game" or maybe "plan to launch several rocket".

I see it as both the research and producing module have a 1 time pollution cost, but if you choose to make modules to place in mining drill instead of the research then every single one of the ore produced later will be slower and still create more pollution AND cost more energy. That's 4 distinct reason to explain why productivity module create more pollution. ( and 5th bonus)

1) cost of producing the module higher than cost of the research unless very small amount of mining drill.
2) increased cost of energy per second per mining drill running until the end of the game or until you stop using the module in them (the energy consumption effet from module)
3) increased generation of pollution per second per mining drill running until the end of the game or until you stop using the module. (the pollution effect from the module)
4) mining drill are slower so increased power consumption to maintain throughput (the reduced speed effect from module)
5) it is possible to do the research while having efficiency 1 module in mining drill ( the drawback of taking a slot in a drill otherwise used to put a module that actually help for pollution)


Modules 3 are very expensive the cost of only 75 modules is roughly equivalent to 3 level of research ( to correct my 300 order of magnitude number) :

The cost of all the science required to research up to mining productivity 3
https://kirkmcdonald.github.io/calc.htm ... WizoQr/AA=

The cost of 75 productivity module 3
https://kirkmcdonald.github.io/calc.htm ... ule-3:r:75

You would need a table with the 3 factor to represent "ressource scarce" "pollution concern" "long game". You can't have all 3 for me, because the first one and the second one are exclusive in terms of decision, you need as a player to set a priority between wether you consider ressource scarcity as your main constraint or pollution because using productivity module is a trade off where you pollute a lot more due to 4) various factor to have a little extra free ore from the map.

to me if "pollution matters" then it matters more than "ressource scarcity" otherwise "pollution doesn't matter" and what matters is "ressource scarcity".

If pollution doesn't matter, still the research is a lot better ! as there is no speed reduction and no increase in energy cost ! and it apply on every single miner, and it cost less ressources unless you have so few miner that each research is taking you days or something and you can place other module in the mining drill like speed module to make even more benefit from your existing research !

pollution i mean is just another significant drawback that was a lot overlooked compared to "ressource efficiency" on which it's easy to focus and not consider the alternative because of being too focused on what one "gain" rather than "what happens" .


Edit: to address the point instead of rambling again about the same stuff :

The benefit of the first level of research can be weighted against the cost of the necessary science that one need to research for sending a rocket to space. The research giving you 10% extra free ore, at the cost of "n" science pack representing a "x" amount of ore. If you plan to consume "y" amount of ore in you game it then become a simple rules of 3. => if y/10>x do the research. ( that's how i see it maybe i'm missing parameters)

Meaning that potentially for the level 1 tech, if you research it , and you want to send 1 rocket, it's going to yield more ore free from pollution and energy cost than the cost of the research. But is it always good to do 3 lvl of mining research ? well maybe not if you want to avoid poluting and are trying to leave the planet as fast as possible as it wouldn't let the player enough time to get a return on investment from the research . I would agree then or at least understand why you say it may not be a good idea in the short term, but long term is required to benefit from the research in terms of offsetting the pollution . it's all clear. ( i think )

[SoShootMe]

My point was that if pollution is a concern, researching Mining productivity 2 or higher is a relatively long term answer: yes, better than productivity modules but (due to the resource cost) still a bad idea in the short term.

Sorry, the part you bolded was a mistake; I meant due to the pollution from producing the science packs. In other words, if pollution is a concern in the short term, you should neither build productivity modules for electric mining drills nor research Mining productivity 2 or higher. Pollution from that research is significant (although less than productivity modules for the same resource benefit, unless you have very few electric mining drills) but on the plus side will pay for itself in the long term.

[blazespinnaker]

It sort of depends, pollution is only part of the equation. Factory footprint is important as well because larger, sprawling bases are tricky to defend, especially when biters have been amped up due to settings or mods.

[mmmPI]

Sorry, the part you bolded was a mistake; I meant due to the pollution from producing the science packs. In other words, if pollution is a concern in the short term, you should neither build productivity modules for electric mining drills nor research Mining productivity 2 or higher. Pollution from that research is significant (although less than productivity modules for the same resource benefit, unless you have very few electric mining drills) but on the plus side will pay for itself in the long term.

I read the "but" on the other side of the balden part, it was my mistake, in context it was clear you were mentionning the surplus of pollution occuring due to producing the science pack for the research.

I agree with you

It sort of depends, pollution is only part of the equation. Factory footprint is important as well because larger, sprawling bases are tricky to defend, especially when biters have been amped up due to settings or mods.

But larger and sprawling base cover more surface that absorb pollution and trees ! also you can stagger which area are producing and stop some of them to leave enough time for their surrounding to absorb pollution.

Also mods can be a totally different experience than vanilla game and very diverse experiences so whatever can become true with the good combination of mods, there are some pretty OP modules out there to balance the modded biters

[Tertius]

I admit I'm unable to follow the latest arguments. They are somewhat vague (although it's a strictly mathematical challenge) or base on specific (but not explicitly mentioned) game modes or ingame goals.

One prod module is a fixed investment, just like the mining productivity research.
The research creates more ore output out of thin air. Essentially, it enlarges every ore resource by the researched factor.
The prod modules convert energy into more output of every intermediate material, so they reduce the ore demand in general.

How useful they are depend on the intended usage timespan. The longer the timespan, the more useful. There is a break even point (that's probably the point where the last posts are about). After the break even point, it paid for itself and usage beyond is free.
In an infinitely running base, modules cost nothing in comparison to the base output. In a base that is just about to launch a rocket, modules cost a large amount of the whole base output. They cost so much, you have to choose if you want modules, or if you want research.

So in small emerging base, I see no use in modules. Efficiency modules may get handy because of the smaller pollution footprint. Single speed modules may get handy if single assembling machines need more output and you cannot expand your base easily. For a larger amount of production modules, there are neither resources nor energy available. They might be required on low resource maps, but I cannot say anything more because I don't play such maps.

In bases that continue to exist beyond the first rocket start, I feel it's obligatory to switch to modules. Or more exact: to fully beaconed moduled factories (beacons=speed, machines=prod). In such a base, nuclear energy provides energy, so energy doesn't matter. Pollution doesn't matter, because you are well armored. In earlier bases, there is not enough energy for modules. But in long living ever growing bases, you need prod modules, otherwise you spend all your time with exploring new resource patches and fighting your way.

The obvious intermediate step (machines without beacons but instead prod modules with 1 speed module) isn't feasible, as far as I tested this. For more output, you need so much more assembling machines, in general a so big factory footprint, and vast amounts of more energy, for just a bit more output from the same resource, it isn't feasible.

The alternative, only speed modules instead of speed+prod, will deplete your raw resources so fast for your growing factory, you spend more time than available for exploring more resource patches. Which includes fighting your way through all the critters out there.

This is my empiric point of view.

If it's required that you actually use a few modules (of any type) in a smaller base due to constraints (deathworld, low resource, water), I cannot tell - in the standard settings, you don't need modules at all until you researched everything except the big "extra" research like atomic bomb or spidertron. Researching mining productivity is obligatory, of course, because it instantly affects all miners and enables you to postpone the seeking for more resources and instead have more time to get ready for fighting the enemies.

[mmmPI]

I admit I'm unable to follow the latest arguments. They are somewhat vague (although it's a strictly mathematical challenge) or base on specific (but not explicitly mentioned) game modes or ingame goals.

attempting a sum up :

There was one argument where "mindset" is "avoiding pollution".

When does researching mining productivity help you save on pollution ?

The research giving you 10% extra free ore, at the cost of "n" science pack representing a "x" amount of ore. If you plan to consume "y" amount of ore in you game it then become a simple rules of 3. => if y/10>x do the research.

It should take a better form to represent increasing cost of research or change the /10 by another amount and scale the "x" and "y" accordingly. This means it's not always a good idea to do the research if you want to save on pollution. It depend on the lengh of the game after the research is done.

Is it a better option to use productivity module in your mining drill to save on pollution while still attempting to match the amount of extra ressources as if you were doing the research instead ? 5) different parameter to factor in for more precise math, but that seem highly unlikely given that using module for productivity in mining drill will increase the pollution/ore for the rest of the game.


In another just previous argument the question was about speed module,given the "mindset" of maximizing output :

When maxed out on speed beacon, do you get ressources faster using speed module in the mining drill or productivity module ?

with the declinaisons:

Does / when ? level of productivity bonus from the research matters ?

how much speed beacon do you need to have around a mining drill full of productivity module to produce more or less than a mining drill full of speed module also surrounded by speed beacon ?

In bases that continue to exist beyond the first rocket start, I feel it's obligatory to switch to modules. Or more exact: to fully beaconed moduled factories (beacons=speed, machines=prod). In such a base, nuclear energy provides energy, so energy doesn't matter. Pollution doesn't matter, because you are well armored. In earlier bases, there is not enough energy for modules. But in long living ever growing bases, you need prod modules, otherwise you spend all your time with exploring new resource patches and fighting your way.

do you include pumpjacks ? and mining drills ? or do you use (beacons=speed, machine=speed) in those ?when do you start considering placing module vs doing the productivity research ? do you just do both ?

I realize typing this that it may sound like the inquisition, i tried to get straight to the point, those questions are what lead to more precise calculations depending on different mindset people value different thing and therefore put the problem into different equations / reasonnings.

The hope is that when one has a particular mindset/goal it's made easier to know what is the optimal strategy to achieve it, be it UPS, ressource conservation, minimizing pollution, benefit the most from research, making your base as small as possible to defend it easily ... there are many way of considering the "puzzle" offer by the existence of module.

I share most of your empiric observation apart from nuclear, since i'm mostly doing it only to power my solar field production and have it as back up late game, it leads to a slightly different appreciation of the energy cost in terms of human intervention as one then need to copy paste blueprints of solar pannel.

[aka13]

I admit I'm unable to follow the latest arguments.

It's shizoposting in circles, I think we are at round 5 already. Some people just really like to start with math, and afterwards diverge into personal opinions.
Personal vendettas are also a thing, so that's why we are at round 5.

[jodokus31]

So in small emerging base, I see no use in modules. Efficiency modules may get handy because of the smaller pollution footprint. Single speed modules may get handy if single assembling machines need more output and you cannot expand your base easily. For a larger amount of production modules, there are neither resources nor energy available. They might be required on low resource maps, but I cannot say anything more because I don't play such maps.

Even in a base before first rocket launch, prod modules are already beneficial in the right places. f.e. the 4 prod3 modules in the rocket silo are cheaper than the regular cost of ingredients without prod modules. Prod modules 1 in labs saves so much science, esp. the expensive research towards rocket, that they easily pay off. Etc.

[joonazan]

I'm saying this because i'm not sure it's possible to fit 12 beacon per mining drill using train wagon direct insertion, following your math reasonning, if we were to use less beacon, say only up to +4 speed then the solving would be when ( 5+1.5)* r = ( 5-0.45 ) * ( r + 0.3) with a result of around 0.7 ( https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2 ... r%2B0.3%29 ) i'm not quite sure what to make from that it shows that if you use less beacon then you need even less research for speed module to be better than productivity module 3 ?

Although i agree with your final conclusion that speed module 3 are better than productivty module 3 when placed in mining drill and looking at the max output per mining drill as metric i think there is an error in the way the problem is made into equation. because if we solve it with no beacon at all we find around 0.0085 (https://www.wolframalpha.com/input?i=%2 ... %2B+0.3%29) which contradict the 8.5 vs 8.515 calculation.

As stated in my post, I chose 12 beacons because it is the most favourable for productivity modules. I didn't explain that further, as a thought it was obvious. This is because adding speed is bad when you already have a lot of speed. 150% speed is added to the existing speed whereas 30% productivity is an actual speed multiplier.

The results make sense. 0.0085 means that you'd have to have -99% mining productivity from research for the unbeaconed cases to be equally good. Basically, don't use prod modules without beacons.

Also, on anything that isn't mining the story is very different. At 12+ beacons speed + prod is FASTER than speed + speed and 40% prod means ~29% less ingredients used. Yes, 40% prod does not make you use 40% less resources.

[mmmPI]

As stated in my post, I chose 12 beacons because it is the most favourable for productivity modules. I didn't explain that further, as a thought it was obvious. This is because adding speed is bad when you already have a lot of speed. 150% speed is added to the existing speed whereas 30% productivity is an actual speed multiplier.

The results make sense. 0.0085 means that you'd have to have -99% mining productivity from research for the unbeaconed cases to be equally good. Basically, don't use prod modules without beacons.

It does make sense, i think what i missed the first time is that the 8.5 vs 8.525 is already with full beacon and that r is defined as 1+productivity bonus. ( with 0.1 for 1 research for productivity bonus)

Therefore r = 0.0085 - 1 in the case of no beacon at all. or - 99%, with no beacon at all the ouput per miner is slower with prod module and no amount of research can help. (the negative sign).

I was wrong thinking there was an error there.

Basically using prod module in mining drill without beacons makes your ore patch drain super slow, requiring a lot more mining drill to maintain the same throughput, it is only good if your mindset is "a mining drill placed should last for the longest time" it was mentionned earlier in the discussion someone wanting to push further away the moment where finding new ore patch is required.

Also, on anything that isn't mining the story is very different. At 12+ beacons speed + prod is FASTER than speed + speed and 40% prod means ~29% less ingredients used. Yes, 40% prod does not make you use 40% less resources.

Indeed mining is a particular case for prod module regarding the metric of "max output per mining drill" due the the possibility of getting a better output per individual mining drill thanks to the mining productivity research synergy with speed module placed inside the mining drill. Whereas for the other machines like assembly but also refineries or electric furnaces it's different calculations. For refineries you only have 3 module slots but it's possible to get 12+ beacons speed.

30% productivity in mining drill thanks to the research bonus means ~23% less ressources used from the ore patch for the same quantity of total output. Or you can say that for the same quantity of input, you get 30% more output. Or in other word, when a mining drill has extracted 77 ores with 30% productivity bonus you reach 100 ores, but if the mining drill goes up to extract 100 the total amount with the added bonus will be 130. This also apply to refineries with coeficient depending on the type of oil processing. this one i think i understand first try

[mrvn]

One prod module is a fixed investment, just like the mining productivity research.
The research creates more ore output out of thin air. Essentially, it enlarges every ore resource by the researched factor.
The prod modules convert energy into more output of every intermediate material, so they reduce the ore demand in general.

How useful they are depend on the intended usage timespan. The longer the timespan, the more useful. There is a break even point (that's probably the point where the last posts are about). After the break even point, it paid for itself and usage beyond is free.
In an infinitely running base, modules cost nothing in comparison to the base output. In a base that is just about to launch a rocket, modules cost a large amount of the whole base output. They cost so much, you have to choose if you want modules, or if you want research.

That's irrelevant since the latest comparison was between prod modules vs. research. Both give more ore, both cost resources (and there is a break even point, jada jada). The latest point though was about the amount of pollution produced each way.

Prod modules make the miners produce more pollution and unless you have solar panels the extra power causes some pollution too.

Weigh that against the pollution created by the whole science production assembly line.

[jodokus31]

One prod module is a fixed investment, just like the mining productivity research.
The research creates more ore output out of thin air. Essentially, it enlarges every ore resource by the researched factor.
The prod modules convert energy into more output of every intermediate material, so they reduce the ore demand in general.

How useful they are depend on the intended usage timespan. The longer the timespan, the more useful. There is a break even point (that's probably the point where the last posts are about). After the break even point, it paid for itself and usage beyond is free.
In an infinitely running base, modules cost nothing in comparison to the base output. In a base that is just about to launch a rocket, modules cost a large amount of the whole base output. They cost so much, you have to choose if you want modules, or if you want research.

That's irrelevant since the latest comparison was between prod modules vs. research. Both give more ore, both cost resources (and there is a break even point, jada jada). The latest point though was about the amount of pollution produced each way.

Prod modules make the miners produce more pollution and unless you have solar panels the extra power causes some pollution too.

Weigh that against the pollution created by the whole science production assembly line.

A prod module is a fixed resource investment like mining productivity research. But a prod module also has the running cost of consuming more power AND producing more pollution. (it's both, even if you run on solar, the miner produces more pollution)
Also, each prod module costs individual, while mining productivity is for all miners.

So, the big downside of mining productivity is that it's limited only for mining operations and it's less valuable for lesser miners.

[mrvn]

Why are you repeating what I wrote?

[mmmPI]

That's irrelevant since the latest comparison was between prod modules vs. research. Both give more ore, both cost resources (and there is a break even point, jada jada). The latest point though was about the amount of pollution produced each way.

Prod modules make the miners produce more pollution and unless you have solar panels the extra power causes some pollution too.

Weigh that against the pollution created by the whole science production assembly line.

You weight the pollution created by the whole science production assembly vs the whole module production assembly.

You are still left with the extra pollution per each ore caused by the modules, whereas if you do the research you don't have it, even better you have free module slot to place efficency 1.

That's just a clear indication that to avoid pollution the research is better than productivity module.

Module cannot get better than 30% productivity, just getting 3 level of research is costing less ore, and require less advanced science pack so producing less pollution than what is required to make 75 modules and to make things even worse then the 75 modules would still produce more pollution overtime for less benefit than the research.

There is nothing to weight against there , in real games prod modules are just ALWAYS worse than the research considering pollution, even if you just make 1 prod module 3 and you do 1 level of research. the prod module will cost less ressources as its 1 time cost but overtime it will pollute for every additional ore, whereas the research will have a 1 time cost maybe higher but then overtime pay off versus the polluting module, make a few more mining drill than 1 and you need to produce additionnal modules vs nothing.

If you think you will have more than 20 25 mining drill at the same time ( 75 module) then it's already better to research 3 lvl of science than try to put productivity module3 in mining drill just for the 1 time cost.... not even counting the extra pollution overtime.

Maybe if you use only 10 mining drill for less than 20 minutes. it's worth it to get the 30 module and have them working for only 20 minutes before their running pollution added to their lower 1 time cost of pollution for the making is made higher than thethe 1 time cost of pollution from the research.

[jodokus31]

Why are you repeating what I wrote?

Sorry, I felt the need to make it more clear. Esp. also what mmmPi pointed out, that the pollution production per miner with prod modules is not only dependent on the power consumption, but the miner itself produces more on top.

Regarding this:

Prod modules make the miners produce more pollution and unless you have solar panels the extra power causes some pollution too.

Also the sentence "Weigh that against the pollution created by the whole science production assembly line. " is a bit misleading, because you only weigh that against the short phase, while relevant science is produced/researched. The setup cost for science packs etc. is not relevant, because you need it anyway to complete the game.

But enough nitpicking...