Efficiency modules need a downside

[bobingabout]

Personally I wouldn't go so far as to move pollution values to recipes.

I would like that too, but not all buildings have a recipe.

[MeduSalem]

--- Biglargequote about rock-paper-scissors approach. Presents two variants---

Keep in mind that a negative (final) productivity modifier makes no real sense. Does it then consume an extra set of resources every time the bar fills up? What if there are no resources? Does it stop? Does it instead fail to produce an item every time the bar fills up?.

Basically yes, the way you described: it would increase the costs of the recipe by that percentage.

That means for -10% Productivity it would cost 1.1 Iron Ore to produce 1 Iron Plate.

That causes fractions of left overs with each finished item that weren't enough to craft a full additional item. For above example:

You obviously have to input at least 2 Iron Ore to even start.

1. Item: 2 - 1.1 = 0.9 Iron Ore to be carried over, 1 Iron Plate comes out
2. Item: (1+0.9) - 1.1 = 0.8 Iron Ore to be carried over, 1 Iron Plate comes out
3. Item: (1+0.8) - 1.1 = 0.7 Iron Ore to be carried over, 1 Iron Plate comes out
...

So basically this can be used for display in the progress bar. It would basically start with a full progress bar and gradually deplete it, with the downside that once it is depleted you don't get an extra item and instead it will require a full set of additional items like in step 1.

And yeah, the assembler/furnace would stop right in the spot until you provide more items to the machine if there are not enough in the buffer. It wouldn't fail to produce an item, but if you decide to cancel the Recipe or dismantle the machine then the left overs are lost because you can't output half an item into your inventory.

[bobingabout]

I would imagine it would "Fill" the productivity bar "Backwards", so it costs 2x resources to start, and every time it empties it costs more resources for it to "Fill" again and continue.

But as I pointed out previously, I'd probably just not go with rock paper scissors, and instead go...

Productivity = +Productivity -Speed
Speed = +Speed -Efficiency
Efficiency = +Efficiency -Speed

So, productivity slows you down, the other 2 are a balance between using more power to crank up the speed, or save power by lowering the speed.

And to make it work, the ratio of speed to efficiency would have to be non-linier, or at least not a 1:1 ratio, so reduce the energy consumption by 50% might only reduce speed by 20%, vica verca increasing speed by 20% might increase energy consumption by 50%. Effectivity and Speed modules in this example cancel each other out. (Well, not exactly, +10% is 110%, -10% is the same as 90%. 90% of 110% is 99%, so there's a net loss of 2% speed and 5% energy consumption from using both the example modules together). if you want there to be a net gain from using the two together, you'd need the benefit of one to be slightly more than the negative effect of the other. So... +20% speed and +40% energy consumption vs -15% speed and -50% energy consumption. Of course these numbers look a little overpowered for a MK3, but they're just examples.


Also, if you want it to work in a way worth using, especially with the cost of modules vs the cost of a new factory, +consumption should be less than +speed, otherwise you might as well just build 2 factories.

On this point, it's usually why I don't really bother with speed modules, and use either productivity or effectivity, until you count my mod, at which point I just use the more expensive speed module that has no negative side effects, and even then usually use them where you can't use productivity. In the case of miners, this would be in a beacon, the miners themselves are filled with productivity modules.

[Hexicube]

Also, if you want it to work in a way worth using, especially with the cost of modules vs the cost of a new factory, +consumption should be less than +speed, otherwise you might as well just build 2 factories.

Bear in mind that means adding in the power cost of inserters, extra resources for infrastructure, and space. You could mitigate the first two, but that 3x7 or 5x5 area you just used with another factory could have been vital.

[MeduSalem]

I further thought about uncoupling the Pollution attribute from Power Consumption... but I never got to upload my thoughts about the balancing for that until now:

Balancing 1.png (13.58 KiB) Viewed 5328 times

The values are up for debate but basically I think they would be alright for Level 3 Modules.

Basically Productivity Modules would be the Opposite of Eco Modules, and Speed Modules the opposite of Efficiency Modules.

If someone has some additional ideas/thoughts on that I am willing to discuss.

Maybe there could be 2 downsides per Module too... to add further diversion.

[stellatedHex]

The problem with these proposals is that they ignore that all of these things are weighted differently, hence the reason for the "lopsided" modules in the base game. Energy is easier to come by, so efficiency modules have no downside, to make their use practical. Time is at a bit of a premium, but not as much as a premium as resources, so the numbers on productivity modules are smaller. As much as I appreciate symmetrical game mechanics, modules are an endgame dealio whose values were derived organically from the existing game balance.

[Engimage]

I further thought about uncoupling the Pollution attribute from Power Consumption... but I never got to upload my thoughts about the balancing for that until now:

Balancing 1.png

The values are up for debate but basically I think they would be alright for Level 3 Modules.

Basically Productivity Modules would be the Opposite of Eco Modules, and Speed Modules the opposite of Efficiency Modules.

If someone has some additional ideas/thoughts on that I am willing to discuss.

Maybe there could be 2 downsides per Module too... to add further diversion.

I have mentioned in my thread about the need to split pollution effect from energy consumption for modules.
While the numbers in this table are really debatable it will give opportunity for rebalancing modules

IMO modules should not have such strong downsides. Using modules should be clearly beneficial for a player. The maximum positive effect should not be that dramatical but the hit should not be as well.
Something like +30% beneficial -15% detrimental makes much more sense compared to what we have now.

And personally I think modules should look like this:

1. Speed module: +30% speed, +15% energy consumption, +15% pollution
2. Efficiency module (redesigned): +10% productivity, , +10% energy consumption, -10% speed (efficiency as a term fits more to wasting less resources per a unit of end product
3. Green (eco) module: -30% pollution, -30% energy consumption

Btw I like the idea that was mentioned - about "leftover" materials in an assembler resulting in extra production when gauge fills up (kinda use of productivity % in all assemblers). Have to think about it. However after the weekend as I got to leave.

[BlakeMW]

IMO modules should not have such strong downsides. Using modules should be clearly beneficial for a player. The maximum positive effect should not be that dramatical but the hit should not be as well.
Something like +30% beneficial -15% detrimental makes much more sense compared to what we have now.

This betrays your lack of understanding of module effects, although it's understandable because the game makes little effort to make it easy to understand the actual effects of modules.

For example with speed modules, when you increase the speed of an assembler you reduce the energy required per item, so a module with +50% speed and +50% energy use results in 50% increased item creation speed with no additional energy required per item. If the module had +50% speed and +0% energy consumption, it would be +50% crafting speed with -33% energy use per item. +50% speed includes an implied -33% energy consumption.

If the numbers were normalized to take crafting speed into account and display the effect in terms of kJ per item instead of kW, then the speed module descriptions for their current stats would look like this:

• Speed 1: +20% speed, +25% Energy Consumption
• Speed 2: +30% speed, +23% Energy Consumption
• Speed 3: +50% Speed, +13% Energy Consumption

Since you said you wanted +30% beneficial -15% detrimental you should actually love the current balance of speed modules, which caps out at +50% beneficial, -13% detrimental.

With Productivity Modules the interactions are far more complex. +Productivity is actually -Energy Consumption, because every item you get for free saves you all the energy it would have taken to mine the ore, smelt the plates and craft the intermediates to make that item. In the right circumstances a Productivity 3 module has something like an implicit -250% Energy Consumption modifier because they save such extreme amounts of energy by creating items out of thin air.

[Engimage]

IMO modules should not have such strong downsides. Using modules should be clearly beneficial for a player. The maximum positive effect should not be that dramatical but the hit should not be as well.
Something like +30% beneficial -15% detrimental makes much more sense compared to what we have now.

This betrays your lack of understanding of module effects, although it's understandable because the game makes little effort to make it easy to understand the actual effects of modules.

For example with speed modules, when you increase the speed of an assembler you reduce the energy required per item, so a module with +50% speed and +50% energy use results in 50% increased item creation speed with no additional energy required per item. If the module had +50% speed and +0% energy consumption, it would be +50% crafting speed with -33% energy use per item. +50% speed includes an implied -33% energy consumption.

If the numbers were normalized to take crafting speed into account and display the effect in terms of kJ per item instead of kW, then the speed module descriptions for their current stats would look like this:

• Speed 1: +20% speed, +25% Energy Consumption
• Speed 2: +30% speed, +23% Energy Consumption
• Speed 3: +50% Speed, +13% Energy Consumption

Since you said you wanted +30% beneficial -15% detrimental you should actually love the current balance of speed modules, which caps out at +50% beneficial, -13% detrimental.

With Productivity Modules the interactions are far more complex. +Productivity is actually -Energy Consumption, because every item you get for free saves you all the energy it would have taken to mine the ore, smelt the plates and craft the intermediates to make that item. In the right circumstances a Productivity 3 module has something like an implicit -250% Energy Consumption modifier because they save such extreme amounts of energy by creating items out of thin air.

I think you underestimate my understanding
As for those speed modules.
I clearly understand that increasing speed without increasing energy consumption is a clear benefit. Not only it does increase the speed itself but as a side effect it decreases the energy per item. However the last is a pure result of the first and not everything in the game is measured with energy consumption per item.

Increasing energy consumption to the equal amount as a speed results only in saving yourself some space and thats it. Cause having a factory with 2 speed 3 modules makes it +100% speed and +100% energy consumption and is effectively equal to building just another factory. There is no real benefit from it other from using in resource mining/pumping where you are effectively limited by resource quantity/the number of nodes. However this will result in enormous pollution as you won't use other modules instead. I am sure that the cost payed for it is not nearly fair. And currently you will need to pay with even greater energy consumption resulting in a clear loss.

So I do still think that limiting speed increase to +30% and limiting energy consumption to +15% is a fair price as in this case using this module is clearly beneficial to building another same building.

And for productivity modules - while the idea may need some rework, the idea is clear and the price in energy is paid for the real result - increasing effectivity of the production which will have less wasted materials. Still I don't think that the current price is fair

[Qon]

Not sure if I've read the whole thread but here we go.

As for those speed modules.
I clearly understand that increasing speed without increasing energy consumption is a clear benefit. Not only it does increase the speed itself but as a side effect it decreases the energy per item. However the last is a pure result of the first and not everything in the game is measured with energy consumption per item.

Energy per item is the measurement that makes sense. Energy per seconds is fairly meaningless because if just speed up one part of the chain the output buffer will fill up and input buffer will dry out, turing the machine off until more input is available and other machines have consumed the output buffer. Which means a machine that is speeded will turn on and off and use a lower energy/s if you take the average over slightly longer time period. All machines in your factory toggling on and off like this will mean that your whole power production does not have to be able to power everything running at once. So the power/item will actually result in lower power per second, just a bit more spiky at times but not a big deal if you have many machines evening it out.

Increasing energy consumption to the equal amount as a speed results only in saving yourself some space and thats it. Cause having a factory with 2 speed 3 modules makes it +100% speed and +100% energy consumption and is effectively equal to building just another factory. There is no real benefit from it other from using in resource mining/pumping where you are effectively limited by resource quantity/the number of nodes. However this will result in enormous pollution as you won't use other modules instead. I am sure that the cost payed for it is not nearly fair. And currently you will need to pay with even greater energy consumption resulting in a clear loss.

So I do still think that limiting speed increase to +30% and limiting energy consumption to +15% is a fair price as in this case using this module is clearly beneficial to building another same building.

Smaller bot factories use less power because bots use energy/distance traveled. And the logistics of smaller factories are easier.

But the key to understanding speed modules as they exist now isn't just for smaller factories. Coupled with productivity modules they decrease energy/item. Do the math or search the forums. Their purpose is to offset the speed loss of productivity modules. Using speed beacons is more much more compact and energy efficient/item when using PM compared to adding more machines.

And thanks @BlakeMW for balancing the discussion with math and reason

[BlakeMW]

Well explained Qon. I'll just add one point.

Their purpose is to offset the speed loss of productivity modules.

In a sense that's not really the main purpose - the fact that they offset the speed penalty of productivity modules in a superlinear way is icing on the cake. Even without that, they are a good way to "make more of" an expensive investment. A good example is my advanced oil processing setup (4x Refinery, 9xChemical Plant), all with Prod3 modules. Though the setup is pretty neat and tileable it's much cheaper to speed up that setup to run 3x faster, than to build another 2 completely new setups. It does use more energy due to the beacons, but saves the cost of 52 prod modules for the cost of only about 10 beacons and 20 speed3 modules (and speed3 is cheaper than prod3 too). When you think about how cheap energy is, you can easily see the beacons are a far better deal than building bigger.

[Qon]

Which is actually a reason why I have been arguing that Productivity Modules are rather pointless anyways about 2 years back or so in another thread about Modules. There are infinite resources on the map except if you chose to limit yourself on purpose with a fixed size map. So there is no real reason to make resources last longer. What's the point in it?

110% Yield x Infinite Resources = Still Infinite Resources.

So there are not limited resources that would justify budgeting resources or improve on the yield during production. So why even have Productivity Modules?

Yeah it makes the resources last longer, but it only delays the inevitable... you have to expand your base. I might even argue that productivity modules kill some of the need for expansion to a certain degree so you never have to leave the starting area. The only other reason is layout compactness, but that can be achieved much more efficiently with Speed Modules.

So productivity modules could be easily removed from the game, wouldn't change much of the gameplay. It's either that or they should be given an entirely different purpose other than improving on the yield. But if I remember right the other thread turned out to be a vast "hell no, leave them in/the way they are" even if there is no real gameplay value to them and like you said only led to abuse so their applicabillity had to be restricted considerably when compared to the two other Module types.

Nihilism. That's your argument against productivity modules, specifically?

Useless ramblings that will not change the ultimate fate of the universe

My time is valuable to me, and I enjoy spending my time playing Factorio with PM. And I prefer spending 6 times more time on designing with PM and reducing time spent making outposts by 6(?) times.

I don't think I have to go any further with specifics at this point. Once you understand what I've written you will understand what truly matters IRL and AFK and it has been said before. But why am I even typing this when life has no meaning anyways?

And factorio is 200k x 200k square tiles, which is a lot but certainly not infinity.

[MeduSalem]

Nihilism. That's your argument against productivity modules, specifically?

[...]

If you say so.

Don't get me wrong Qon, but I'm not really interested to get involved with you in a philosophical debate about the meaning of life if that's how far you want to take it. I will be honest with you, I'm not interested in such a debate because at several occasions you already mentioned that you are posting only when you are "right"... occasionally dismissing people's arguments simply as "wrong", which is not really the most constructive base for such a discussion. So how is one supposed to argue with someone like that about the deeper meanings of life without eventually regretting to even have started such a conversation?

[Qon]

Nihilism. That's your argument against productivity modules, specifically?

[...]

If you say so.

Don't get me wrong Qon, but I'm not really interested to get involved with you in a philosophical debate about the meaning of life if that's how far you want to take it. I will be honest with you, I'm not interested in such a debate because at several occasions you already mentioned that you are posting only when you are "right"... occasionally dismissing people's arguments simply as "wrong", which is not really the most constructive base for such a discussion. So how is one supposed to argue with someone like that about the deeper meanings of life without eventually regretting to even have started such a conversation?

The point isn't that we should have a philosophical debate. "Nothing matters" can be used as an argument against anything in the game. It's not a good argument. I can say that EM modules are useless because a solar power is endless. Or speed modules, because you can just use more assembly machines. And why even have production goals when you can win the game with a single assembly machine if you wait long enough? My point was that the pointlessness of PM is a philosophical argument you started, that is pointless.

So I agree that we should not talk about philosophy of life and focus on making efficient (in any dimension you choose to optimise) factorio factories. Where productivity modules have a part, and not just for making patches last longer. Now that patches grow with distance there's a simpler way to everlasting resource patches. But PM are still useful for other things even if your resources are endless.

I don't dismiss arguments as "simply wrong" without providing arguments why it is so. And I don't assert what I don't know, which is why I can say that I am right. Might sound like I'm saying that I know everything, but if that is your interpretation then you misunderstand me. Knowing that you are right in what you say means claiming less knowledge because you limit your claims to what you can factually and rationally support.

[Qon]

Well explained Qon. I'll just add one point.

Their purpose is to offset the speed loss of productivity modules.

In a sense that's not really the main purpose - the fact that they offset the speed penalty of productivity modules in a superlinear way is icing on the cake. Even without that, they are a good way to "make more of" an expensive investment. A good example is my advanced oil processing setup (4x Refinery, 9xChemical Plant), all with Prod3 modules. Though the setup is pretty neat and tileable it's much cheaper to speed up that setup to run 3x faster, than to build another 2 completely new setups. It does use more energy due to the beacons, but saves the cost of 52 prod modules for the cost of only about 10 beacons and 20 speed3 modules (and speed3 is cheaper than prod3 too). When you think about how cheap energy is, you can easily see the beacons are a far better deal than building bigger.

Yes, you are right. It's how they are most commonly used I think. What I meant with that their purpose is to offset the speed loss is that it is their commonly "given purpose" in the meta. But other uses are also valid of course. Didn't mean to imply it was their only purpose. Which I guess I accidentally did with that overly simplistic statement.

[Aatch]

The problem with efficiency modules having a "downside" is that kinda stops them from being efficiency modules. Efficiency can be measured many ways, but generally, if process A produces more output for some fixed amount of input than process B does with the same amount of input, then process A is more efficient. Input here is not only the actual resources (e.g. iron, electric circuits) but also the power used during crafting and the time taken. To some extent, all of the modules are "efficiency" modules, they just improve the efficiency for different metrics. Speed modules are more time efficient (more stuff in less time), productivity modules are resource efficient (more stuff with less input stuff). As others have said, the inputs aren't independent, making it that much harder to figure out.

I'm not sure how I feel about efficiency modules. I do think they're a little "overpowered" right now, but I think that should be better fixed by adjusting the minimum power use and letting that be influenced by module tier. Getting down to 20% power use almost everywhere would be much harder if it was only possible when you have at least one level 3 efficiency module installed (not saying this is how it should work, just an example of a way to balance things).

[Engimage]

The problem with efficiency modules having a "downside" is that kinda stops them from being efficiency modules. Efficiency can be measured many ways, but generally, if process A produces more output for some fixed amount of input than process B does with the same amount of input, then process A is more efficient. Input here is not only the actual resources (e.g. iron, electric circuits) but also the power used during crafting and the time taken. To some extent, all of the modules are "efficiency" modules, they just improve the efficiency for different metrics. Speed modules are more time efficient (more stuff in less time), productivity modules are resource efficient (more stuff with less input stuff). As others have said, the inputs aren't independent, making it that much harder to figure out.

I'm not sure how I feel about efficiency modules. I do think they're a little "overpowered" right now, but I think that should be better fixed by adjusting the minimum power use and letting that be influenced by module tier. Getting down to 20% power use almost everywhere would be much harder if it was only possible when you have at least one level 3 efficiency module installed (not saying this is how it should work, just an example of a way to balance things).

One thing that can be related is called "diminishing returns"
Generally this means that every new module of the same type will have less overall effect on a target.
The curve of this effect is something to discuss but the general idea looks like this:

Say you have a tier 1 module with 30% effect. First module adds 30% Second adds 20%. Third adds 15% and fourth adds 10%. 4 modules with a total of 75%. So you use 4 tier 1 modules and still can.t reach the cap.
For tier 3 module first module adds 50%. Second adds 35%. So with 2 modules you reach the cap.

[stellatedHex]

Diminishing returns can be done without any arbitrary limits and tables and such: just make the efficiency modules multiplicative instead of additive. So if I have 2 tier 3 efficiency modules, it doesnt reduce power by .5+.5=100%, it reduces power by (1-.5)*(1-.5)=75%

[Photoloss]

Diminishing returns can be done without any arbitrary limits and tables and such: just make the efficiency modules multiplicative instead of additive. So if I have 2 tier 3 efficiency modules, it doesnt reduce power by .5+.5=100%, it reduces power by (1-.5)*(1-.5)=75%

...and either makes the first one an OP must-have or successive ones near useless. Let's NOT do that until other game mechanics can be expanded in a meaningful way. Read: solar rework instead of a straight-up nerf, as long as infinite free power exists Efficiency Modules always have to compete with the cost of just building more solar.

Even if such a change were already implemented I don't see the immediate merit to it. Can you explain how this would enrich gameplay and encourage more complex, meaningful decisions? Because if you just want the game to be "harder" nerf the numbers instead of adding unnecessary mechanics.
Stacking multiplicatively with energy penalties would also be utterly broken in the other direction, while keeping it additive would be rather confusing.

[BlakeMW]

When playing with mods and stuff, a serious problem with eff1 modules is they negate high energy usage, you can't really have high energy usage as a penalty in a machine and module slots, because eff1 modules make the energy use go away for a trifling cost.

One possible downside then is capped energy reduction per module:


-30% Energy Consumption, max reduction = 45kW
-40% Energy Consumption, max reduction = 150kW
-50% Energy Consumption, max reduction = 400kW


This would go best if the consumption modifier is multiplicative instead of additive, that is applied separately to and after + energy consumption modifiers. So then if you have an Assembler consuming 1.8MW thanks to prod modules and speed beacons, then an eff1 module would reduce usage by 540kW - but be capped to 45kW, an eff2 would reduce by 720kW - but be capped to 150kW, and the eff3 would reduce by 900kW - but be capped to 400kW.

Those numbers are just pulled out of my ass, more or less. But a 45kW reduction is what is currently saved in an Assembler 2, the eff1 module would thus be unhindered in the low energy machines, but be less effective in electric furnace, chemical plant and refinery. You would need 4x Eff1 modules in an Assembler 3 to achieve almost maximum savings (-76%).

By letting eff modules reduce the final energy consumption - up to a limit - a role would be created for Eff2 and Eff3 modules in reducing the energy use of speed/prod setups. The capping is required so that eff1 modules can still be very potent in low energy machines, but without negating the energy consumption of high energy machines for practically free.