Efficiency Module Scaling

[jodokus31]

my discussion start with the assumption that green eff can be balanced by making pollution punishing.

but if im being honest, i like balance from usage incentive, not punishment by omitting it. Hence the steam turbines suggestion i made in previous post.

So we need a not punishing, optional and interesting mechanic for eff modules.
Currently its not punishing, optional, but not interesting (except deathworld, where its a bit interesting, hardly optional, but OP on first tier).

add eff modules to steam turbines is not bad, actually. It's like an upgrade to gain more power without increasing UPS.
Problem is, that the most ideas are just, plug it in and *magic*: more power. Not so interesting, maybe?

My opinion is still, make balance for the deathworld case better.

- labs get slower

Now this sounds interesting. It adds a logistical challenge.

Though I would solve it by moving the labs far outside my base, not reducing pollution.

If the pollution cloud gets bigger, you would have to move the labs again and again

[mudcrabempire]

One of the challenges with finding a place for efficiency modules is that their only effects are to reduce energy consumption and pollution production. Both issues can alternatively be dealt with by building more power plants and more defenses. The only situation in which I see efficiency modules being a viable lategame alternative is if power plant space is limited, so the player must make the best use of available power...which realistically only happens in scenarios.

There already is a place for using efficiency modules: Reducing power consumption. Sure, you can always build more powerplants instead, but at cap (-80%), you would need 5x as big a powerplant to achieve that effect.

Currently higher tier effs are simply too weak and their mechanics are bad. If a machine is sitting at 500+ % energy consumption -50% from an eff3 is a drop on a hot cooking plate.

In order to make effs worthwhile (apart from early eff1 spam), you would need to change their formula. E.g. instead of -X% energy consumption (added to all other modifiers), calculate consumption from increases (speed, prod) first and then divide that consumption based on the effs affecting the building. May need a change in how the numbers of effs are represented.

E.g.: Power = (base*(1+sum(speed modifier, prod modifier)) / (1+sum(eff modifier))
eff modifier = 0.5 (eff1) , 1 (eff2) , 1.5 (eff3)

So with an assembler with 4 prod3 and 4 beacons with 6 speed3 and 2 eff3 you get: (1+4*0.8+3*0.7) / (1+1.5) = 2.52 -> 252% of base energy consumption
Compare against using the 4th beacon for speed3 as well: 700% of base energy consumption

Also, the eff1 spam will get nerfed a bit (2 eff1 -> 50% of base energy consumption, 3 eff1 -> 40% of bec). Still good but less OP.

Also you can scratch the hard-cap. The return from additional effs or higher tiers would be properly diminishing (like the return from adding more and more speeds).

[pichutarius]

add eff modules to steam turbines is not bad, actually. It's like an upgrade to gain more power without increasing UPS.
Problem is, that the most ideas are just, plug it in and *magic*: more power. Not so interesting, maybe?

Its not magic. The word efficiency is used IRL: coal energy efficiency is about 30% to 40%, Factorio efficiency used to be 50%, it changed to 100% for simplicity sake. Efficiency module can be think of improving the transfer of energy.

Gameplay wise i agree its boring. Make both boiler and steam "moduleable". With beacon, mathematically it is interesting to find the best layout since the shape is not usual square.

Off topic: nuclear adjacent bonus is magic too, but i "explained" it as preventing heat loss.

[QGamer]

add eff modules to steam turbines is not bad, actually. It's like an upgrade to gain more power without increasing UPS.
Problem is, that the most ideas are just, plug it in and *magic*: more power. Not so interesting, maybe?

Its not magic. The word efficiency is used IRL: coal energy efficiency is about 30% to 40%, Factorio efficiency used to be 50%, it changed to 100% for simplicity sake. Efficiency module can be think of improving the transfer of energy.

Gameplay wise i agree its boring. Make both boiler and steam "moduleable". With beacon, mathematically it is interesting to find the best layout since the shape is not usual square.
...

The efficiency module's current behavior is defined as reducing the energy consumption of a machine for the exact same output.
So putting an efficiency module 1 into a boiler would mean that it consumes 30% less coal for the same water->steam conversion.
Putting an efficiency module 1 into a steam engine would mean it consumes 30% less steam for the same electricity output.
Both of these I don't think really make sense as the modules presumably are "magic with circuits" as how can a circuit affect coal burning or the mechanics of steam powering a turbine?

So making the modules viable in boilers or steam engines for more power output would suggest they improve efficiency on the output side, which for a boiler still doesn't make sense, but might work for a steam engine. This would be a rework of what an efficiency module fundamentally does. I'm not against such a thing, but I wanted to point this out so it's clear to everyone what a change to efficiency module mechanics would imply.

[pichutarius]

...

you changed my mind. now you put it that way, i see problem in my solution, functionally eff module act like prod module for steam/boiler. and i dont like that.

also realistically, i think overhauling eff module at this point isnt likely to happen. so op suggestion about scaling % probably is the best idea.

suppose it scale like -30%/-120%/-600% (number chosen from recipe - no diminishing return), i could imagine using eff 3, sprinkle in beacon sandwich here and there, until i have confidence dealing with biters (deathworld setting), then swap them out and use them to craft spidy.

because currently its like what mudcrabempire said, "a drop on a hot cooking plate".

[jodokus31]

suppose it scale like -30%/-120%/-600% (number chosen from recipe - no diminishing return), i could imagine using eff 3, sprinkle in beacon sandwich here and there, until i have confidence dealing with biters (deathworld setting), then swap them out and use them to craft spidy.

because currently its like what mudcrabempire said, "a drop on a hot cooking plate".

The problem with eff modules is, that mk1 is OP.
If you play a normal game, you don't use eff modules at all, because its not necessary and somehow boring. I remember, when I played green and was really disappointed, that biter attacks got so weak against my wall.

If you play deathworld, you rush eff modules and instantly reduce pollution by 60% - 80%. There's nothing more effective that this and IMO destroys the balance of deathworld. At the same time, you get flamers and landmines, which are also OP themselves. The initial storm is calmed down rather quick and the rest of the game is played with biters as annoyance and no real threat.

So, I would say, balance mk1 and then think about a use case of eff modules in beacon setups.
My proposal was here:
viewtopic.php?p=532315#p532315