Efficiency Module Scaling

[jodokus31]

I might not be popular w/ my opinion, but I honestly think, green modules are already way too OP on lvl1.

On a death-world marathon scenario starting in desert, as soon as you fill every miner/assembler with lvl1 green modules the challenge suddenly just disappears. Both pollution created by miners/factories drop drastically and your power needs also.

I think lvl1 should be hugely nerfed and maybe lvl2 as well.

I agree.
I considered the following changes:
- Effectivity Module 1: 20% reduction
- Effectivity Module 2: 60% reduction
- Effectivity Module 3: 200% reduction
- Miners can only take 2 modules

This leads to the following situation:
In miners, furnaces, assembler2, you start with 40% reduction. Already huge.
You can use one module2 + one module1 to max it out.
Assembler3 takes 4 modules1 to max it out

With module3 you can do something serious with beacons/other modules
EDIT: Maybe still too weak with the current calculation?

[starlinvf]

I might not be popular w/ my opinion, but I honestly think, green modules are already way too OP on lvl1.

On a death-world marathon scenario starting in desert, as soon as you fill every miner/assembler with lvl1 green modules the challenge suddenly just disappears. Both pollution created by miners/factories drop drastically and your power needs also.

I think lvl1 should be hugely nerfed and maybe lvl2 as well.

I agree.
I considered the following changes:
- Effectivity Module 1: 20% reduction
- Effectivity Module 2: 60% reduction
- Effectivity Module 3: 200% reduction
- Miners can only take 2 modules

This leads to the following situation:
In miners, furnaces, assembler2, you start with 40% reduction. Already huge.
You can use one module2 + one module1 to max it out.
Assembler3 takes 4 modules1 to max it out

With module3 you can do something serious with beacons/other modules

But don't Miners take 3?

[starlinvf]

That was largely what I was getting on as well. They are very expensive to use for what they give.

You can barely fit anything extra if you're adding modules aiming for the -80% reduction bonus, which is the only thing you should be aiming for if you use efficiency modules. If you don't reach it, the net effects are very small: going from, say, +100% power consumption down to +0% is only a 50% total reduction but requires 20 percentage points more from the efficiency modules than going from +0% to -80%, and moreover, a machine running at -80% is 5 times more efficient than at the +0% mark. And this is before even factoring in the vastly higher cost of the tier 2 and 3 modules!

If you just want the -80% bonus, you just use eff 1 for everything but furnaces and pump jacks which need eff 2. If you want high productivity and speed with it you have to do the very expensive build I outlined in my previous post. Using eff 2 and 3 also directly competes with the cost of just using solar power instead, afaik the only use there is to reduce pollution rather than energy cost, or if you need extremely space-efficient builds given how much land you usually have available and how comparatively little it costs to secure more in the late game.

I've been thinking, upping the effect of the tier 2 and 3 efficiency modules by at least 5% and 10% respectively would be good. I'd probably even be on board for 5% and 15% without any further thought. Even 10% and 20% would most likely still be a conservative buff, as also 10% and 25% would probably be.

From what I've looked into it, they're just mathematically a lot worse than any other configuration you could conceive. If anyone has a counterexample, please do by all means present one. The only exception I've seen so far is if you value pollution minimization say 10 times higher than energy cost and other costs, or really need extreme space efficiency with power reduction, but both are very small niches.

No, you're pretty much on track with the problem. Just mucking with the values doesn't work so long as Prod/Spd compound the way they do; because its competing too hard for those module slots. Pollution on its own isn't that good incentive in the long game; which is where I think the Effs should have some kind of useful application.

Short of killing the Prd/Spd coefficient combo, we need to find something Eff modules can play off of with either Spd or Prod.

[jodokus31]

But don't Miners take 3?

Sure, but my proposal was to change it to 2 slots. Mainly, because miners are one of the biggest polluters, where effectivity modules have the most impact.

[foamy]

Short of killing the Prd/Spd coefficient combo, we need to find something Eff modules can play off of with either Spd or Prod.

Make prod use fewer components per craft, instead of giving you more outputs. And remove the speed penalty.

That would immediately make it so that if you want more material from the same number of machines, you use speed mods. If you want to use less material overall, you use production. And if you want to save on energy/pollution, you use efficiency.

Done, dusted.

[Khagan]

Make prod use fewer components per craft, instead of giving you more outputs. And remove the speed penalty.

That is only a quantitative change. For the same percentages, it makes productivity modules better. But it doesn't change the nature of the synergy between productivity and speed.

[foamy]

Make prod use fewer components per craft, instead of giving you more outputs. And remove the speed penalty.

That is only a quantitative change. For the same percentages, it makes productivity modules better. But it doesn't change the nature of the synergy between productivity and speed.

Yes, it does. The synergy between production and speed is this: A production module stacks multiplicatively with speed modules because it produces increased outputs for every craft.

Consider a current beacon square layout. You get +600% speed from the beacons, -60% from quad production modules, and 1.4x multiplier from the production modules. In effect, you craft 8.96x times as much output as the baseline. If every single module were pure speed, you get to 9x output. They're functionally the same output wise, except the production one uses drastically fewer raw materials.

But now consider it with my proposed change. The prod/speed combo would produce precisely 7x the base production, that amount exactly corresponding to the speed module bonus. That's the only scale factor. It would consume exactly the same resources to produce that 7x that the current production modules do, but the production modules make no contribution towards increasing the output. You need to place more machines or speed-modules for that.

It wrecks the synergy, and it provides clarity of purpose to the modules. Simpler math, too, with production mods not gumming up things with a speed penalty.

[Khagan]

Make prod use fewer components per craft, instead of giving you more outputs. And remove the speed penalty.

That is only a quantitative change. For the same percentages, it makes productivity modules better. But it doesn't change the nature of the synergy between productivity and speed.

Yes, it does. The synergy between production and speed is this: A production module stacks multiplicatively with speed modules because it produces increased outputs for every craft.

That's a constant factor. But granted, it is there, so I should have said that as well as making productivity modules better your suggested change would also make speed modules worse (since their speed boost would apply to the outputs instead of the inputs). The optimal cost-effectiveness of the synergy would therefore occur at a lower ratio of beaconed speed to productivitied assemblers than currently. It would still be true that the only important use for speed beacons would be to get the most value out of expensive high-level productivity modules; pure speed for its own sake is largely pointless.

Consider a current beacon square layout.

Beacon millefeuille is much more cost-effective; a square layout is already well past the optimal point of the synergy.

In any case, this thread is supposed to be about making high-level efficiency modules more attractive ...

[pichutarius]

lets face it, even if one eff module instantly reduce to 20% (capped), i bet majority still wont use them except in deathworld.

the reason? we like big numbers!
its satisfying reading 20 GW production on the energy stats.
its satisfying watching turbines puffing out steam furiously.
power reduction? what is this amateur hour in my craft menu?

also, a prod module not only save material cost, but also the energy cost to mine resources, smelt plates and make the ingredients, while eff module merely save a few kW.

eff module should belong to immediate product tabs that goes into your suit or your pet spidy.

[jodokus31]

So i guess, it won't bother you, if efficiency modules would be balanced properly

Other than that, humanity also thought, it is cool to use power and resources like crazy ... And now it's extremely uncool to live with the consequences
I would love a game mechanic, where you also would destroy the planet, if you don't save energy/resources

[pichutarius]

So i guess, it won't bother you, if efficiency modules would be balanced properly

Nope it certainly wont.

I just think "balance properly" needs more than number tweak.

Some random ideas: Able to plug into steam turbines to increase power generation with same pollution or less.

Speed and prod works very well because they doesnt compete each other for slot. Prod goes to machine, speed goes to beacon. If eff wants to play nicely they must find their own place.

[jodokus31]

So i guess, it won't bother you, if efficiency modules would be balanced properly

Nope it certainly wont.

I just think "balance properly" needs more than number tweak.

Some random ideas: Able to plug into steam turbines to increase power generation with same pollution or less.

Speed and prod works very well because they doesnt compete each other for slot. Prod goes to machine, speed goes to beacon. If eff wants to play nicely they must find their own place.

In a normal game they could be used in miners, but no one bothers with, because like you said, everyone like big numbers and pollution is not a factor in late game except UPS drain, etc...
They have the niche place, to be used in deathworld and they are OP for this case. This could be balanced a bit, to be less OP

I agree, properly balancing for all cases needs a different approach.
Pollution would have to be more of a challenge endgame.

Random thought:
What if drill/pumpjack pollution would scale with mining productivity research?

[pichutarius]

Random thought:
What if drill/pumpjack pollution would scale with mining productivity research?

My guess would be no difference. by the time we dealing with high level mining productivity, pollution is non-issue. Fire melts bugs.

If you want pollution to post a danger, maybe make behemoth bugs has dynamic stats depending on the pollution.

An implementation might be, spawner spend 30% of absorbed pollution to create biters that has 7.5x health, 0.225x damage, where x is spent pollution. (for vanilla, x=400)

Since both hp and dmg scales with x, the "threat" is scaled roughly x^2 . Spitters can have their range scaled this way and now pollution might make them outrange your defense, making them extremely dangerous (or annoying).

now i feel like being forced to use efficient module.

[NotRexButCaesar]

Random thought:
What if drill/pumpjack pollution would scale with mining productivity research?

[...]

Since both hp and dmg scales with x, the "threat" is scaled roughly x^2 . Spitters can have their range scaled this way and now pollution might make them outrange your defense, making them extremely dangerous (or annoying).

now i feel like being forced to use efficient module.

Factorio isn’t really a combat focused game; it is a game about factory building. Unless some new way to deal with pollution were added, I don’t see this being fun after the initial rocket.

I guarantee you that, with the correct map green settings, you can make pollution a much larger issue. People usually don’t because most of the time it isn’t fun.

[jodokus31]

Random thought:
What if drill/pumpjack pollution would scale with mining productivity research?

[...]

Since both hp and dmg scales with x, the "threat" is scaled roughly x^2 . Spitters can have their range scaled this way and now pollution might make them outrange your defense, making them extremely dangerous (or annoying).

now i feel like being forced to use efficient module.

Factorio isn’t really a combat focused game; it is a game about factory building. Unless some new way to deal with pollution were added, I don’t see this being fun after the initial rocket.

I guarantee you that, with the correct map green settings, you can make pollution a much larger issue. People usually don’t because most of the time it isn’t fun.

Deathworld is fun for many. Only, that eff1 modules are too strong and instantly change the game. eff2/3 don't add much and are worse than eff1
More and stronger biters can be fun, too. Look at those who play Rampant or use desert seeds with deathworld marathon settings.
The discussion about fun is very individual and the mainstream always wins due to majority.

The mechanic more pollution -> more, stronger biters is probably not the way to go for a broader audience. Especially because weapons get OP and biters can be held off without reducing pollution.

What are interesting incentives to avoid pollution?
- I remember a mod, where sea level rises with higher pollution (Cant find it).
- Or make breathing more problematic, if pollution gets to high.
- solar gets worse. though solar is already boring
- machines get slower, resources are more slowly to extract.
- labs get slower
- machines use more power inside more pollution.
- Or give boni or achievements for reducing pollution to don't be punishing.

If there are none realistic for normal game, then at least balance eff modules for deathworld properly.

[NotRexButCaesar]

- 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.

[pichutarius]

Factorio isn’t really a combat focused game; it is a game about factory building. Unless some new way to deal with pollution were added, I don’t see this being fun after the initial rocket.

i agree what you have said, heck i even dont like my own suggestion, hence the last sentence "now i feel like being forced to use efficient module."

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 unfortunately i dont like any of these suggestion:

What are interesting incentives to avoid pollution?
- I remember a mod, where sea level rises with higher pollution (Cant find it).
- Or make breathing more problematic, if pollution gets to high.
- solar gets worse. though solar is already boring
- machines get slower, resources are more slowly to extract.
- labs get slower
- machines use more power inside more pollution.
- Or give boni or achievements for reducing pollution to don't be punishing.

But hey, that just an opinion, a personal opinion. thanks for reading.

[QGamer]

Speed and prod works very well because they doesnt compete each other for slot. Prod goes to machine, speed goes to beacon. If eff wants to play nicely they must find their own place.

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.

What situations would make efficiency modules uniquely useful in place of others?

• Put them into reactors to lower consumption of uranium fuel cells
• Put them into trains to lower fuel consumption (would speed modules be better in trains?)
• Put them into logistic/construction robots to make them cheaper (how would this work? would speed modules be better?)
• Put them in combinators or lamps
• Put them in laser turrets (but wouldn't speed modules also be better?)
• Put them into modular equipment to lower energy consumption

The truth is, none of these ideas are very good. For nearly every entity that doesn't currently have module slots, speed modules would be better. For every entity that won't be better with speed modules, it either doesn't fit thematically (such as reactors), or would be not worth the trouble (combinator power consumption is negligible AFAIK).

[SirSmuggler]

If trees could be planted, but they would not grow unless pollution is low enough, there would be some incentive to use green modules for thouse who want to prettyfy their bases with some greenery, but it would be just as optional as it is today if all you care about is massive produktion numbers?

[QGamer]

That'd be nice, if we could plant trees for beautification or industrial-scale forestry.
However, wood is only useful in the early game, so I don't see this happening anytime soon.