A New Perspective on Productivity: Should It Be Chance-Based?

[MinMinOvO]

TL;DR

Current Factorio productivity (the progress bar) is clunky, especially when switching recipes. It wastes resources and encourages exploits. A chance-based system, similar to quality modules, would eliminate these issues, making productivity more intuitive and dynamic. Players complain about lost productivity when switching recipes, particularly with expensive items. The current system feels punishing and encourages save-scumming to maximize output.

What's the Big Idea?

Currently, productivity in Factorio operates through a progress bar: as an item is produced, the bar fills, and when complete, an extra item is created. While effective, this system has limitations, especially when switching recipes. Changing recipes resets the productivity bar to zero, leading to wasted resources, particularly in complex setups involving high-cost items.

The proposed change would make productivity chance-based. For example, 100% productivity would mean a guaranteed extra product at the end of production, while 150% would imply a 50% chance to receive an additional product on top of the base yield. This would ensure all productivity benefits are realized at the end of production, removing concerns over partial progress loss and addressing certain bugs without manual exploits.

Why Roll the Dice on Productivity?

• Eliminate Lost Productivity: In the current system, switching recipes mid-production erases any accumulated productivity. A chance-based approach means that switching recipes wouldn’t disrupt productivity gains, making multi-recipe production setups more viable and less frustrating.

• Fair and Familiar: While some may hesitate at the idea of adding randomness, consider how quality modules already introduce chance elements in a way players accept and even enjoy. A chance-based productivity system would work similarly, bringing consistency to how players approach both quality and production.

• No Unintended Exploits: The current productivity bar system can be manipulated through manual restarts, creating unintended advantages. A chance-based system would prevent these exploits, maintaining balance without the need for complex circuit workarounds.

• Dynamic Production Strategy: Embracing this change would add a new layer of decision-making, encouraging players to adapt their production strategies to accommodate varying outcomes, similar to how quality production chains currently operate.

Although the introduction of randomness may initially appear unconventional, it aligns with the probabilistic nature of existing quality module mechanics. Statistical averaging ensures balanced outcomes over extended periods. For instance, when producing 10,000 (50 stacks) of Electronic Circuits using Assembling Machine 3s equipped with Productivity Module 2s (yielding a 24% productivity increase), the output generated by the new mechanism consistently remains within 100 items (0.5 stacks) of the output generated by the original mechanism.

output.png (23.39 KiB) Viewed 224 times

In summary, a chance-based productivity mechanism would streamline gameplay, enhance multi-recipe efficiency, and align with existing game mechanics, offering a more cohesive and intuitive experience.

[SupplyDepoo]

This seems like a big change with a minor motivation. For every player who is complaining about lost productivity with recipe switching there will be a player who complains that some count-perfect circuitry no longer works, or that belts cannot handle random throughput spikes, requiring higher tier belts if available or loss of throughput.

It doesn't quite make sense to me that 50% would be random but 100% productivity would be a guaranteed extra output. It's inconsistent logic. 100% should still be random, averaging to x2 products per craft.

Recipe switching is kind of a niche puzzle that most players won't use, and recipe switching with productivity probably even less. At the same time the problem you describe can be solved with buffers and more logic. This should be viewed as part of the challenge. More optimisation = more puzzle.

As you said, the randomness of quality is a bit controversial, and but at least it's a new (Space Age) thing and not that important (mostly for personal equipment, and a few other things you don't need that much of). Adding randomness to long established mechanics will not be popular.

I almost think this is not a serious suggestion, and that you are actually fishing for a rejection so that you can then say "see? if randomness for productivity is bad, then quality should not be random either". The whole first paragraph just doesn't make sense to me.

TL;DR

Current Factorio productivity (the progress bar) is clunky, especially when switching recipes. It wastes resources and encourages exploits. A chance-based system, similar to quality modules, would eliminate these issues, making productivity more intuitive and dynamic. Players complain about lost productivity when switching recipes, particularly with expensive items. The current system feels punishing and encourages save-scumming to maximize output.

How is it clunky outside of switching recipes? How would a chance-based system make it not save-scummy? How is randomness more intuitive?

The progress bar reflects the idea that a more precisely tuned machine could, for example, stamp components out of a sheet of metal more tightly, leaving extra material which every so often leaves enough space to stamp one more component. Randomness here doesn't make sense.

What's the Big Idea?

Currently, productivity in Factorio operates through a progress bar: as an item is produced, the bar fills, and when complete, an extra item is created. While effective, this system has limitations, especially when switching recipes. Changing recipes resets the productivity bar to zero, leading to wasted resources, particularly in complex setups involving high-cost items.

The recipes which productivity can be applied to are mostly low-cost. The high cost items are generally not needed in great numbers. If you're doing fancy recipe switching logic, you can account for that.

The recipes that most players are using recipe switching with (which is already a minority of players) are mall-type stuff, like construction materials and personal/combat equipment, none of which can be productivity boosted.

Why Roll the Dice on Productivity?

• Eliminate Lost Productivity: In the current system, switching recipes mid-production erases any accumulated productivity. A chance-based approach means that switching recipes wouldn’t disrupt productivity gains, making multi-recipe production setups more viable and less frustrating.

Yes, this is a good motivation, but...

• Fair and Familiar: While some may hesitate at the idea of adding randomness, consider how quality modules already introduce chance elements in a way players accept and even enjoy. A chance-based productivity system would work similarly, bringing consistency to how players approach both quality and production.

A progress bar is more familiar and more predictable. Different mechanics should feel and work different. I have not seen anyone else make this suggestion.

• No Unintended Exploits: The current productivity bar system can be manipulated through manual restarts, creating unintended advantages. A chance-based system would prevent these exploits, maintaining balance without the need for complex circuit workarounds.

All of the automatic exploits have been getting patched. Manual exploits are a minor concern in a mass manufacturing game. It's not fun to do and that's why no one does it, so it's not a real exploit.

• Dynamic Production Strategy: Embracing this change would add a new layer of decision-making, encouraging players to adapt their production strategies to accommodate varying outcomes, similar to how quality production chains currently operate.

Players are encouraged to adapt their recipe switching logic to switch only when the productivity bar has reached 100% (one can measure the extra output), and use extra buffers as may be necessary.

In summary, a chance-based productivity mechanism would streamline gameplay, enhance multi-recipe efficiency, and align with existing game mechanics, offering a more cohesive and intuitive experience.

No, it is a thought-provoking, but largely unnecessary change.