Recycling

[Dysoch]

How do you want to make that? Which machine should not be able to use these modules?

this is taken from the assembling machine data definition:

Code: Select all

allowed_effects = {"consumption", "speed", "pollution", "productivity"}

by simply removing productivity, the machine cant use the productivity modules.

nothing more is needed

[FreeER]

Hm, if the main problem is the productivity modules then it seems like the simplest solution is to take them into account while 'recycling', aka do so with script for now and then later when the devs make it possible to modify recipes during the course of the save it'd be much easier. Or a negative productivity modifier for the recycler that is based on an average of the productivity modules in use in other machines.

All you need is a machine where productivity modules dont work.

It's not just a machine that doesn't take prod. modules but the fact that you have to make sure that no matter how many prod modules the player is using (4 in assem 3, and for mods who knows) that you do not give more than the lowest price with those max modules. AKA for 4 prod mk 3 you get about 45% more (if I read it right) so when calculating the recipe you have to make sure that you do not give the player more than 55% of the base recipe, otherwise assem to recycler would give more of the ingredients than went into the product and those ingredients could be sent back into assem to go back into recycler, etc. etc. Then consider if you did that for every step when going to the more complicated items, it's not a 45% increase but by some factor of the number of steps and the increased productivity in each (no i'm not going to figure it out, if someone else did would make it easy to code though).

Of course the most obvious is to remove productivity modules but I have a feeling it wouldn't very popular...

[Nova]

Oh, just removing the productivity module from the assembly machines. How about removing them completely? Would have the same effect. ^^

[ssilk]

Hm. When I think about it, why shouldn't a player not be enabled to play with items by energy? From gameplay view there is no issue against it.

But on the other hand... Well, the efficiency module has made problems, and I'm sure it will continue to make.

But I like it. And I like recycling. Which brings me to the relations between recycling and efficiency. Efficiency and recycling. Isn't that not nearly the same?

Why is an assembly more efficient? Simply because it doesn't produce so much waste, it doesn't create items from air, it uses it's own waste to create more products.

Logical consequence: if it produces waste, where is it now?
Second logical point: this depends only entities, which can use efficiency modules. The others are more or less efficient enough, because when they would produce suddenly waste, where to put it?

So in consequence this means: when I can put in an efficiency module, then it produces waste.
Now we are at Garms idea! But not completely, only those, which can use efficiency module (repeat).

Hm. When I think about it, what parts of factorio this might depend, I see no change in the first 6-8 hours, but after that, this changes the gameplay completely. But we need more reasons, to use that new technology. No pollution? Currently no good deal.
But would make sense, if we wake otherwise a monster, so big and powerful, that it will destroy everything, no matter how many lasers we have.

But back to recycling: in consequence this means, that by recycling waste, I can produce items (or waste). Or in other consequence: when I input a smart inserter to the recycler, and I want as output some rockets I gain some waste. I can reinsert the waste as long, as my rocket is build.

Hm. Now reading this through again and found, this is hard to understand. But I won't rewrite it again.

[FreeER]

Hm. When I think about it, why shouldn't a player not be enabled to play with items by energy? From gameplay view there is no issue against it.

Matter <-> Energy conversion? then you need Teleporters

But I like it. And I like recycling. Which brings me to the relations between recycling and efficiency. Efficiency and recycling. Isn't that not nearly the same?

I don't think so, efficiency = lower energy (not lower ingredients), recycling = reclaiming useful material from products that are no longer useful (have become a form of waste). Recycling issue = Productivity modules, M<->E issue = efficiency (in the same way) but they are separate if you do not consider the M<->E conversion as possible.

Why is an assembly more efficient? Simply because it doesn't produce so much waste, it doesn't create items from air, it uses it's own waste to create more products.

I think I'm confused by what you mean by waste. Waste = undesired byproducts of producing a desired product (pollution). So it in no way uses it's own waste to create more, but other machines can use it's product (desired) to produce other products (and waste). With Garms (wonderful) idea you simply introduce a new physical form of waste for the player to manage.

But would make sense, if we wake otherwise a monster, so big and powerful, that it will destroy everything, no matter how many lasers we have.

It doesn't need to be and in my opinion should not be a physical monster players are unable to fight, but it should be something that is extremely difficult (and annoying lol). Ex. biter waves, poison fog, catastrophic failures due to lack of maintenance, etc. or more than one. The waves can be fought off, the poison could be circumvented by gas masks (which need replacing over time), the destroyed machines can be rebuilt, but it is better to simply deal with the waste.

But back to recycling: in consequence this means, that by recycling waste, I can produce items (or waste). Or in other consequence: when I input a smart inserter to the recycler, and I want as output some rockets I gain some waste. I can reinsert the waste as long, as my rocket is build.

Recyclers reduce to base materials (iron, copper, etc) so you could consider it to be no waste (or with Garm's idea, waste but not usable in production) unless you are specifically using the products of recycling to make something that will only use part of the base materials of the item being recycled, then you'd have undesired byproducts (waste).

Hm. Now reading this through again and found, this is hard to understand. But I won't rewrite it again.

If I missed your point blame this ^

[ssilk]

Matter <-> Energy conversion? then you need Teleporters

No, currently it's just wasted. Either by pollution or - then - as waste. This means, that in the ideal case, it "seems" like there is less input and more output. But we cannot really measure the weight of the output, or can we? So it is valid to say: 1 iron ore is not 1 iron plate, it's a little bit more. It's just numbers.

But I like it. And I like recycling. Which brings me to the relations between recycling and efficiency. Efficiency and recycling. Isn't that not nearly the same?

I don't think so, efficiency = lower energy (not lower ingredients), recycling = reclaiming useful material from products that are no longer useful (have become a form of waste). Recycling issue = Productivity modules, M<->E issue = efficiency (in the same way) but they are separate if you do not consider the M<->E conversion as possible.

Sorry, but maybe here lags my English. in German efficiency means both: efficiency of energy and/or material. An efficient car uses less gasoline. An efficient power plant uses less coal/oil/whatever. Efficient computers are using less energy at same speed and/or same energy at more speed. And so on.

I think I'm confused by what you mean by waste. Waste = undesired byproducts of producing a desired product

yes.

(pollution).

No. I mean there are some unusable byproducts:
- pollution (air and ground)
- waste
- poison
...

So it in no way uses it's own waste to create more, but other machines can use it's product (desired) to produce other products (and waste). With Garms (wonderful) idea you simply introduce a new physical form of waste for the player to manage.

Yes, I like that idea. Waste is for me an item, like others. Pollution isn't.

doesn't need to be and in my opinion should not be a physical monster players are unable to fight, but it should be something that is extremely difficult (and annoying lol). Ex. biter waves, poison fog, catastrophic failures due to lack of maintenance, etc. or more than one. The waves can be fought off, the poison could be circumvented by gas masks (which need replacing over time), the destroyed machines can be rebuilt, but it is better to simply deal with the waste

Sounds fine. For me it is only important, that the player needs to change his factory and don't think it's the right way to do it without change.

But back to recycling: in consequence this means, that by recycling waste, I can produce items (or waste). Or in other consequence: when I input a smart inserter to the recycler, and I want as output some rockets I gain some waste. I can reinsert the waste as long, as my rocket is build.

Recyclers reduce to base materials (iron, copper, etc) so you could consider it to be no waste (or with Garm's idea, waste but not usable in production) unless you are specifically using the products of recycling to make something that will only use part of the base materials of the item being recycled, then you'd have undesired byproducts (waste).

Well. That's the point! we need to!
I explain: when I can gain material by producing (or be more and more efficient, depends on the standpoint), and then enable to reverse this operations in only ONE step, then we have made a real perpetual mobile.

Or in other words: when I produce an express belt, I need about 100 iron ore.

Iron ore => iron plates => wheels => basic belt => fast belt => express belt

I left out some details. Now let's say we have an efficiency module which gains 10 % at each step. We have 5 steps, so the result is calculate able with any online interest calculator - is 62 iron ore. We gained 38 ore.

Code: Select all

62 + (62 x 10%) =
68,2 + (68,2 x 10%) =
75,02 + (75,02 x 10%) =
82,522 + (82,522 x 10%) =
90,7742 + (90,7742 x 10%) =
99,85162

Now reverting should be the same way! Because if not, we have the problem.

Express => fast => basic > wheels > plates => ore

If I loose at every step 10% I should have at the end 62 again.

Code: Select all

100 - (100 x 10%) =
90 - (90 x 10%) =
81 - (81 x 10%) =
72,9 - (72,9 x 10%) =
65,61 - (65,61 x 10%) =
59,049

Uh? There is something missing. We lost 3.
This is the inflation rate
(yes I know how it is calculated correctly, but for now this is a simple as can be example)

But I think it's clear what I mean: we cannot just make one step we need the same number of steps, as the item needed to produce. Or more?

I made some suggestions half a year ago about that. The idea was, that the recycler works like a big hammer and if I put a express belt in it, then by very, very low chances, the 100 ore are coming out, but it's much more probable that an fast belt some wheels and some waste comes out. Or the express belt again. If the parameters are set correctly, the resulting items should in average be the same as the previous ingoing.

That where the waste comes into play. Because of probabilities it should be possible to use waste as a "joker" in the recycler. So with low chances I gain an iron ore from waste. With lower chances an iron plate and so on.

Because when I need waste to recycle things, then waste becomes suddenly a worth. But this is the second thought in the above post and I'm really tired now.

If I missed your point blame this ^

No quite well, right questions.

[FreeER]

I got a bit lost in that math Um, more in trying to find a way to get back from it lol. It's probably much simpler than I managed to think of (might even seem obvious once i know) but while playing with percent change (from economy videos on khan academy) I created a program over at Khan Academy instead of actually doing the math myself...

[ssilk]

Lol. Well, I thought this small gap is ok, because even the very best recycling is not 100%. There are always some loss and a small inflation could compensate the gain some may find with rare combinations of recycling/assembling.


Edit: rethought it a bit and found out, that this doesn't work so well with those many modules. It will make problems. And I mean, the problems are already there. I would vote for one efficiency module per entity, because that makes it also much better calculateable. Especially, when the whole system changes. If we see, that it works, they can bring them back later.

[Dysoch]

well to summarize what my recycling does:

• Items go into the recycler. Depending on the materials made, they either get scrap (wood, coal or stone items) or scrap metal (all metals)
• Then scrap and scrap metal can be processed in the compressor
• Scrap metal can be used to create plates, 2 scrap metal for a copper or iron plate, and 10 scrap metal for steel plates.
• Scrap can be used to create ores (takes a long time!), raw-wood or stone (also a long time)
• Both machines are incredible slow, and use a lot of power.

I simply looked at items, and decided a good value to get. for instance, an basic electric mining drill gets 6 scrap metal. Or an wire gets 1 for every 2 wires.
do not expect to get a lot back. But its still better then nothing

[ssilk]

Scrap and scrap metal: this means, that you have some different items of scrap? For the current game, not your mod, I think we have then five?

I don't understand, why there is scrap needed, when it is nothing else than another type of ore. I mean from gameplay perspective, there is nothing needed to distinct, from where the material comes from. And it shouldn't matter, because every afford, that is needed to recycle should be in the recycler, not in the next step.

[ficolas]

Alchemy! Alchemy with scrap! :0

[Dysoch]

Scrap and scrap metal: this means, that you have some different items of scrap? For the current game, not your mod, I think we have then five?

I don't understand, why there is scrap needed, when it is nothing else than another type of ore. I mean from gameplay perspective, there is nothing needed to distinct, from where the material comes from. And it shouldn't matter, because every afford, that is needed to recycle should be in the recycler, not in the next step.

Nope, only 2 items. Scrap and scrap metal. They can be processed in the compressor by selecting a recipe.
These recipes are coal, stone, raw wood, iron ore, copper ore, iron plate, copper plate and steel plate.

Straigth forward, without any difficulty