[0.17.66] Is death world marathon hard enough? (green-build)

Post all other topics which do not belong to any other category.
User avatar
BlueTemplar
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 2420
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: [0.17.66] Is death world marathon hard enough? (green-build)

Post by BlueTemplar »

Maybe they could also lower the power usage of the beacons themselves ?
BobDiggity (mod-scenario-pack)

User avatar
Oktokolo
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 883
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:45 pm
Contact:

Re: [0.17.66] Is death world marathon hard enough? (green-build)

Post by Oktokolo »

jodokus31 wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:56 am
But I don't think, that removing mk2 and mk3 would be a good solution. It would not improve the existing behaviour, but only remove the minor occasions, where they could be useful.
Even in a deathworld, the first tier gets most stuff to the minimum pollution output possible. The minor benefit of using some mk2 in machinery having only two slots isn't worth the resources needed for making them. And mk3 theoretically could be of use in mixed-module designs - but i only see monocultures of productivity modules in machinery combined with speed modules in beacons.
Do you see actual use cases for efficiency modules mk2 or mk3?
jodokus31 wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:56 am
I would rather improve the usefulness of them
Apart from making them affect beacon energy consumption, i see not much potential for boosting them. But nobody cares about energy consumption or pollution late game. So they would still not be used in common beacon designs.
I don't know, whether the energy consumption reduction actually affects constant power drain of machinery too - if not, that could also be changed.
The efficiency module is the only module wich's commulative effect has a maximum value (80% conservation) - but changing that would not make sense.

The main problem of the efficiency module is, that the other modules are just so much more usefull and work so good together.
Productivity modules give you free stuff leading to less resource consumption wich often lead to a lot less pollution too (use them near end products for most effect). And speed modules combine great with productivity modules, wich also can't be put into beacons.
It really looks like they first designed the productivity and speed modules and then decided later that they need to have some diverse option too...

Replacing the efficiency module with techs like exhaust filters and fuel desulphurization would be better. That will not happen though.

User avatar
jodokus31
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: [0.17.66] Is death world marathon hard enough? (green-build)

Post by jodokus31 »

Oktokolo wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:16 pm
jodokus31 wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:56 am
But I don't think, that removing mk2 and mk3 would be a good solution. It would not improve the existing behaviour, but only remove the minor occasions, where they could be useful.
Even in a deathworld, the first tier gets most stuff to the minimum pollution output possible. The minor benefit of using some mk2 in machinery having only two slots isn't worth the resources needed for making them. And mk3 theoretically could be of use in mixed-module designs - but i only see monocultures of productivity modules in machinery combined with speed modules in beacons.
Do you see actual use cases for efficiency modules mk2 or mk3?
As they are designed currently, I don't see much use cases for them. mk2 in furnaces and pumpjacks to reduce pollution/consumption by half is the best IMO. Mk3 not really, but I sense, there is somebody, who would miss them (as with everything).

For rebalancing of eff modules (esp. in pollution sensitive scenarios), the mechanic could be changed. This would not necessarily make them more useful in normal mode, but it would reduce the superiority of mk1 modules. (Because you insert 3 Level 1 and it cannot get better, 1 mk2 is already more expensive)
F.e.
- Mk1 modules have lower max. reduction, mk2 middle and mk3 high. (BlueTemplar's suggestion).
- Or you can only allow 1 efficiency module per machine (or in miners only, as they are one of the main pollution producers + they are out in the wild and annoy the biters faster), which makes it necessary to build mk3 for highest impact.
- Or pollution and electric consumption are treated independently. f.e. mk1 only reduce consumption but no pollution, mk2 reduce consumption and bit of pollution and mk3 consumption and the most pollution.
- Or cost of higher tiers could be reduced.
- Or Maybe you could have additional slots only for eff modules in beacons to reduce consumption of beacons and/or spread to machines. As a different competing approach to mass power (solar or nuclear)
Oktokolo wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:16 pm
Replacing the efficiency module with techs like exhaust filters and fuel desulphurization would be better. That will not happen though.
Agree, that would be more realistic.

User avatar
BlueTemplar
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 2420
Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:16 pm
Contact:

Re: [0.17.66] Is death world marathon hard enough? (green-build)

Post by BlueTemplar »

Oktokolo wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:16 pm
The minor benefit of using some mk2 in machinery having only two slots isn't worth the resources needed for making them.
Yes, IIRC (on marathon) it's 4 times the cost to go from electric furnace with 2 mk1 to electric furnace with 2 mk2, for a pretty small, -36kW and -0.2PU/m reduction ?
BobDiggity (mod-scenario-pack)

mudcrabempire
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 110
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 2:44 pm
Contact:

Re: [0.17.66] Is death world marathon hard enough? (green-build)

Post by mudcrabempire »

I don't mind efficiency modules being the solution to deathworld marathon. It's just how you do it. If you nerf them, people will figure out a different strategy which will become the new solution. They will most likely never see much use outside of the more biter-heavy modes, as they only reduce energy consumption and pollution - energy is only a problem when you are out of space and resources, which only really happens with angry biters, pollution only interacts with biters (apart from killing trees) in the first place, so if they are no problem, pollution is no problem either.

As for Mk2 and Mk3, they are currently a bit of a paradox: They are supposed to reduce your consumption, but their production consumes so many resources (including energy, pollution and time) and they don't really do anything which the Mk1 version can't do.

I think it's mostly a problem of the numbers though, so here an idea for rebalancing:

Mk1: -20% //For a combined -40%, -60% or 80% depending on the number of slots - good enough to fill your machines, but not good enough to solve all your problems.
Mk2: -70% //Almost full efficiency from a single slot and can counter most other modules one-on-one with some leftover. For when you want to get past the slot limit or when you want to start using other modules and still stay green.
Mk3: -160% //One completely counters a production Mk3 module and still gives you full efficiency. With two one can even counter beacons to a small degree. For those who really want to stay green.

Also, maybe enable them for beacons. With the boost on Mk3, they can easily offset the energy drain of a beacon and still pay off.

User avatar
jodokus31
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1599
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: [0.17.66] Is death world marathon hard enough? (green-build)

Post by jodokus31 »

BlueTemplar wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 11:40 pm
Oktokolo wrote:
Fri Aug 23, 2019 4:16 pm
The minor benefit of using some mk2 in machinery having only two slots isn't worth the resources needed for making them.
Yes, IIRC (on marathon) it's 4 times the cost to go from electric furnace with 2 mk1 to electric furnace with 2 mk2, for a pretty small, -36kW and -0.2PU/m reduction ?
You still half the consumption/pollution IIRC, which is not nothing in bigger scale. But the costs are questionable to even get there.
mudcrabempire wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:24 am
As for Mk2 and Mk3, they are currently a bit of a paradox: They are supposed to reduce your consumption, but their production consumes so many resources (including energy, pollution and time) and they don't really do anything which the Mk1 version can't do.
Yep, thats my point. I'm just brainstorming, how to resolve this or if it's ok how it is.
mudcrabempire wrote:
Sat Aug 24, 2019 12:24 am
I think it's mostly a problem of the numbers though, so here an idea for rebalancing:

Mk1: -20% //For a combined -40%, -60% or 80% depending on the number of slots - good enough to fill your machines, but not good enough to solve all your problems.
Mk2: -70% //Almost full efficiency from a single slot and can counter most other modules one-on-one with some leftover. For when you want to get past the slot limit or when you want to start using other modules and still stay green.
Mk3: -160% //One completely counters a production Mk3 module and still gives you full efficiency. With two one can even counter beacons to a small degree. For those who really want to stay green.

Also, maybe enable them for beacons. With the boost on Mk3, they can easily offset the energy drain of a beacon and still pay off.
Maybe mk2 even 80%, to get full bonus from 1 slot?
In case of miners, it would mean: Going from 3 Level 1's with 60% to 1 Level 2 with 80% and you don't have to mix them to get full reduction.
Similar for furnaces with an even higher boost.
Mk3 i'm not sure, Maybe just ridiculously good to counter everything.

Post Reply

Return to “General discussion”