0.15 Should efficiency modules be more about pollution?

[BlakeMW]

In 0.15 with the steam changes and the addition of nuclear power, energy usage becomes increasingly irrelevant, as electricity is either cheap (coal) or abundant (solar/accu or nuclear). When you can easily add chunks of 320MW to power generation, efficiency modules become even less interesting and harder to care about.

But what if efficiency modules had a pollution modifier?

• Eff1: -25% consumption, -10% pollution
• Eff2: -40% consumption, -15% pollution
• Eff3: -50% consumption, -30% pollution

The pollution modifier is (effectively) multiplicative making it potent when combining modules.

Why -consumption is uninteresting:

The maths is too simple. You can just calculate how much energy is saved in a machine, for example 150kW * 0.3 = 45kW, and you can compare it with clean electricity: for example a solar panel produces 42kW on average. So an eff1 module in assembler 2, is roughly as effective as building a new solar panel. Which is cheaper? Well they are pretty similar, but the solar panel is more iron-rich, while the eff module is copper and oil rich, but basically a watt saved by an eff module in an assembler 3 tends to be a little cheaper than a watt generated by a solar panel.

Of course this become a big problem with the eff2/eff3, because it becomes "I'm spending HOW MUCH to save 60kW?!!!!!" and even if the -consumption numbers are made a lot bigger (like -160%) it's still not really an interesting choice - and the big numbers would look silly, like "-160% consumption, maximum -80%".

-pollution may not be cost effective... but at least it's interesting

Say it's pretty easy - by using the very expensive eff3 modules - to get a -80% pollution modifier in beacon setups and dramatically slash the pollution created by prod+speed beacon setups - this would involve replacing 200% of the speed bonus with a -120% pollution modifier (and a largely irrelevant -160% consumption). In a strict cost analysis it's probably going to work out much cheaper to build more laser turrets and just destroy the enraged biters. But at least it's an interesting choice, rather than spending 10x as much to save a kW as it takes to generate a kW (a choice you will only make if you've either not done the maths, or are daft), it's the choice between running a dirty factory with a "burn the biters!" attitude, or a clean factory with consideration for the biters. And again, running a clean factory might be stupid because biters are pretty easy to deal with by genocide, but it can be a fun choice to make, and if the higher tier eff modules had a potent pollution reducing effect it would make more options for running a clean factory - instead of only using "eff1 spam" type setups, you could use prod+speed beacons with a cost-effectiveness hit, but being cleaner by reducing the factory footprint thanks to the +40% productivity.

[Chartas]

I like this idea. Would also go well with a number of higher difficulty mods who significantly increase biter activity with pollution.

[thereaverofdarkness]

But what if efficiency modules had a pollution modifier?

• Eff1: -25% consumption, -10% pollution
• Eff2: -40% consumption, -15% pollution
• Eff3: -50% consumption, -30% pollution

They do, because pollution is directly affected by energy cost. -50% energy cost means -50% pollution.

[Xuhybrid]

Are you a moron? Efficiency DOES reduce pollution. That's my whole reason for using them everywhere...

[Chartas]

Are you a moron? Efficiency DOES reduce pollution. That's my whole reason for using them everywhere...

Only the pollution generated by the boiler. you could also try reducing pollution directly on the machines.

[AileTheAlien]

I think the most interesting point is the implicit one made by the original poster. Namely, that the reduced pollution and the reduced electricity consumption, should be separate values. Right now they are linked together, which I think is a big part of why the modules feel unbalanced and difficult to balance. (i.e. There's at least one long discussion, on how the modules could be properly balanced. Possibly two...)

[Vim Razz]

Are you a moron? Efficiency DOES reduce pollution. That's my whole reason for using them everywhere...

Only the pollution generated by the boiler. you could also try reducing pollution directly on the machines.

This is not correct. An electric mining drill generates 9 pollution on it's own, but with max efficiency modules only generates 1.8 pollution.

That's the pollution from the drill itself, and is generated in addition to any pollution from power generation.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I think the most interesting point is the implicit one made by the original poster. Namely, that the reduced pollution and the reduced electricity consumption, should be separate values. Right now they are linked together, which I think is a big part of why the modules feel unbalanced and difficult to balance. (i.e. There's at least one long discussion, on how the modules could be properly balanced. Possibly two...)

I agree. I feel pollution should be separate from energy cost. Also, if the modules listed how they affect pollution more clearly, it would avert situations like this in which the player does not realize they can reduce pollution with efficiency modules.


I was thinking of actually changing the modules like so:
Speed Modules: increase speed and cost way more power, but only increase pollution by the speed increase
Efficiency Modules: decrease speed and cost way less power, but only decrease pollution by the speed decrease
Productivity Modules: decrease speed a bit but add a tiny productivity bonus, then they REDUCE pollution

The reason I think this would be a good change is that efficiency modules are already useful for cutting back on power costs, while productivity modules in the mid game are useless. They don't become very useful until late game with beacons when you can get such high productivity numbers that they give you more speed than speed modules. I think productivity modules should be about material efficiency not speed. Also, a machine that uses materials more efficiently will pollute less, so that makes sense as well.

[Nasabot]

I agree with the idea. However, I have a different proposal:

Why not abolish efficiency modules alltogether and subsitude it with pollution modules? As you correctly said: energy consumption can be trivialized (through solar and nuclear power) and as I view it efficiency modules main purpose is to reduce pollution (I always rush the mk1 for miners)

The pollution modules could look like this:

mk1: -30% Pollution
mk2: -50% Pollution
mk3: -80% Pollution
(optional: also increase energy cost)

Dont be scared from the 80%, if you look at it closer and its math, it makes sense, because you have to consider the possibilities and variations.

Normally you'd use 3x -30% energy cost in miners(to reduce pollution), using other modules is highly debateable. Speed can be substituded with more miners and with the new research miner research, producitivity modules become even more inefficient in Miners. (productivity stacks additivly)

With a new -80% pollution modules there would be at least 2 new possibilities:
1, 2x Mk3 Speed + 1 Mk3 Pollution Module (<--high investment for concentrating speed on small area)
2, 2x Mk3 Productivity + 1 Mk3 Pollution Module (<--high investment and still high pollution to optimize productivity by a small margin)
3, and ofc early 3x Mk1 Pollution modules (<---low investment to reduce pollution)

[bobingabout]

Are you a moron? Efficiency DOES reduce pollution. That's my whole reason for using them everywhere...

Only the pollution generated by the boiler. you could also try reducing pollution directly on the machines.

Nope.

Pollution is generated as pollution per unit of energy consumed, therefore reducing consumption reduces pollution. As can be seen by the green modules in my mod (or just using pollution and efficiency modules together, -80% consumption, -80% pollution, aka 20% and 20% total consumption and pollution) it actually reduces pollution to 4%, which is almost nothing.

[BlakeMW]

Are you a moron? Efficiency DOES reduce pollution. That's my whole reason for using them everywhere...

Possibly, or possibly I just take it for granted that consumption and pollution are intimately linked, but in any case they only reduce pollution in an additive way. I'm talking about making them like the productivity module, which increases pollution in two ways, both via the +consumption and via the +pollution.

For example if you have a machine running at +500% energy consumption due to beacons and other modules, and you add a -50% consumption modifier from Eff3, then the net reduction in pollution is 1 - 5.5 / 6 = 8.3%. The 5.5 consumption modifier is also the base pollution modifier which then gets modified by pollution%, so it is at this point where the pollution modifier of modules (like production, and my proposal for eff) takes effect. For example if you have 4 prod modules, the final pollution multiplier is 5.5 x 1.4 = 7.7. But anyway, say there are no prod modules. So the final pollution modifier is thus 5.5 x 0.7 = 3.85 instead of 5.5.

The pre-modified eff3 module would reduce pollution by 8.3% in this setup, the post-modified would reduce pollution by 35.8% - that's the potency of the pollution modifier being multiplicative, the -30% pollution modifier is more than 5x as potent at reducing pollution in beaconized setup as the -50% consumption modifier.

Furthermore, without an explicit -pollution modifier, efficiency modules have to directly compete with speed modules. Speed modules cause assemblers to complete each item faster. A pure +speed modifier actually reduces the energy-per-item and pollution-per-item - that's on top of producing items faster! In fact when productivity modules are in play, the +speed from speed3 generally has a greater energy-saving and pollution-reducing effect than the +consumption, that's even taking into account the energy usage of a beacon added to house the speed3 modules! (the beacon doesn't even increase pollution, if you're using clean electricity). So speed3 modules are incredibly potent in combination and difficult for the eff3 module to compete against without a powerful modifier.

Quick maths check on Speed3 vs Eff3 in beacon setups: Starting with 4x Prod3 module in Assembler 3, plus the number of beacons listed below and producing items that take 0.5s

• 4x Speed3: 210kW * 7 / 3 * 0.5s = 245kJ/item (baseline)
• 8x Speed3: 210kW * 9.8 / 5.5 * 0.5s = 187kJ/item (-24% pollution/item)
• 4x Speed3, 4x Eff3: 210kW * 5 / 3 * 0.5s = 175kJ/item (-28% pollution/item)

So in this setup, the addition of 4 Speed3 beacons reduced pollution/item by 24%, while 4 Eff3 beacons reduced pollution/item by 28%. Considering that the speed3 module is the one with the +consumption modifier and technically should be the one increasing pollution, it should thus be surprising that it is as nearly as effective at reducing pollution as the Eff3 module - while also increasing item throughput by 83%.

Finally, if you read my post at the bottom I mention eff1 spam: there are only a few buildings, electric furnaces and pumpjacks basically, that can't be reduced to -80% energy consumption by using 3xeff1. The exceptions can be reduced to -80% by 2x eff2 modules. *Technically* some clever people have pointed out you can use 3x Eff3 modules and 1x Speed3 module to get even lower energy-consumption-per-item (with a total of +50% speed, -80% energy consumption), but putting that exception aside (which is quite ridiculous because of the return on investment time) you can minimize your factory's pollution by using eff1 modules alone, with a few eff2 modules if you really care. This leaves no role for eff3 modules, and frankly barely any role for eff2 modules. Currently the eff1 modules are great for reducing pollution but the eff3 are garbage.

[dragontamer5788]

Currently the eff1 modules are great for reducing pollution but the eff3 are garbage.

I have also crunched the numbers and have come to a similar conclusion. Efficiency1 is okay. Efficiency 2 and Efficiency 3 are not worth it right now.

------------

If Efficiency 3 modules reduced the evolution rate however... then maybe I'd consider them for short-term situations. In any case, Efficiency 2 and 3 are so horribly underpowered and expensive that its shameful. Generally speaking, it costs more energy (and pollution!) to make an Efficiency2 module than to just buy more Solar Panels... let alone the more costly (and even less efficient) EM3.