this is taken from the assembling machine data definition:Nova wrote:How do you want to make that? Which machine should not be able to use these modules?
Code: Select all
allowed_effects = {"consumption", "speed", "pollution", "productivity"}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).Dysoch wrote:All you need is a machine where productivity modules dont work.
Matter <-> Energy conversion? then you need Teleportersssilk wrote: 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.
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.ssilk wrote: 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 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.ssilk wrote: 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.
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.ssilk wrote: 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.
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).ssilk wrote: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.
If I missed your point blame this ^ssilk wrote:Hm. Now reading this through again and found, this is hard to understand. But I won't rewrite it again.
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.FreeER wrote:Matter <-> Energy conversion? then you need Teleporters
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 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.ssilk wrote: 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?
yes.I think I'm confused by what you mean by waste. Waste = undesired byproducts of producing a desired product
No. I mean there are some unusable byproducts:(pollution).
Yes, I like that idea. Waste is for me an item, like others. Pollution isn't.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.
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.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
Well. That's the point!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).ssilk wrote: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.
we need to!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
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
No quite well, right questions.If I missed your point blame this ^
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...
Nope, only 2 items. Scrap and scrap metal. They can be processed in the compressor by selecting a recipe.ssilk wrote: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.