GregoriusT wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2024 11:39 pm
And now that you reminded me that what was said is 17% which might actually be 16.66666% rounded up
I don't know what to think anymore, i remember that too now from earlier FFF about quality. But i can't find any rationnal for 50%=> 17% of cycle consuming ore , for the first and last quality level, how to spread other value in between so that "legendary" is 150% of "normal" in a certain way. Can't find that particular way , and i suppose there could still be tweaks made by the devs between now an release so that is a lot of speculation, which i don't mind, even though the question was 'how you do the mining drill? ' "i do math and speculation month before as preparation" is a valid answer to me, that's a bit extreme, but it doesn't come as chock to me either to see (other) players over-engineer things
Also i disagree, you didn't screwed up, you help refined understanding and dispell rumors, i had no idea at all because it seem i had forgotten or misread the FFF or had my own speculation stick more in memory. Then i thought it could be 90%, then i thought i wouldn't be that, now i have that 17% well in mind
FasterJump wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2024 11:15 pm
Conclusion: considering a 200 SPM base with mining productivity research level 4, this is very close to the breaking point: researching mining productivity level 5 cost slightly more than the cost of upgrading outposts to beaconed setups (cost of making 376 sets of 5 T3 modules (+ 1 beacon + 15 solar panels per set)).
I like the wording on this one, "cost slightly more". Doesn't mean one is "better" or the other. The "cost in ressources" being one thing to measure but not the only one. I mean if you consider that 200 SPM base, and a player who rather go for modules everywhere rather than research from 4 to 5 because it cost more ressources. Then player is left with 200 moduled mining drill and still research lvl 4.
From that situation, the question (to me) is no longer between more module and the research, from my point of view, but rather : if i want to improve my mining drill area/ ressource income, i need to have enough modules in reserve now, otherwise the module i've already paid for will see their share of ressources "bonified" dimishing when adding new mining drill. Because that could create a situation where only 95% of drills have modules, or 90% or 85% and so on, it creates limit in the potential expansion rate, that if player try to expand faster than this limit,(module production rate) it will be more and more "ineficient".
Whereas if you have paid "slightly more" for the research, it makes every single additionnal mining drill that player wish to build as good as any other previous mining drill. Sure you have paid slightly more before, but now if you place 50 or 100 or 1000 new drills because your next step in the game plan involve a large scaling there is less downside, you don't need to wait for the modules to be in chest expansion is cheap.
The second option to me leave the player in a much better position, even if when considering the strict productivity of the infrastructure whose cost was factored in is "slightly higher". In an other game it could be stated as : policy (A) pay [27] for a +3 bonus on all your [existing mining drills] vs policy (B) pay [28] for a +3 bonus on all your [existing] and [future] mining drill. The [27] vs [28} breaking point is one thing. But it's only the cost of the operation, there is also a second bracket that matter, policy (B) cost the same as policy or slightly more than policy (A) , the immediate result are measured to be the same "+3" , true, but in situation (B) you are then free to allocate your module to green circuit or red circuit, or blue circuit or more module production, whatever, while expanding your mining drills "cheaply". Whereas if one decided to go for the slightly less expensive policy (A) what is the optimal allocation for new module and/or mining drill now ? Either adding mining drills, and the proportion of all the modules that goes there is "missing" for the rest of the factory compared to situation (B), or waiting for the next research like situation (B) but WITHOUT possibility to expand the mining drill number efficiently if not sinking all new module there.
Not sure how one would go about mathing those effect without making first lot of assumption/speculation about the price of things that are vey subjective such as how to model the "worse" outcome of situation (A) compared to (B) in terms of 'margin of action'. That's not something you measure in ore objectively or i wouldn't know how to put a meaningful number here, but i think it's important to keep in mind the meaning of the result and be precise in the wording delivering them and i think it was well done imo, and i appreciate it. Thank you ! : )
GregoriusT wrote: Sat Mar 16, 2024 11:39 pm
I still hate the way the Map View handles the Oil Patch mouseover though.
Suggestion : ([number of pumpjackslot],[ total yield %]) 2 numbers displayed, in case you have 27 pumpjack slots, and you can't be bothered to count them but you also don't want to bring several stacks to make sure you have enough when you go there ? ^^
I know sometimes percentages over 100 are used wrongly and it's irritating, but sometimes there is reason to use % above 100 too ! When there is growth, one can say there was "5%" growth this year, or this year results are 105% those of last year. They could have been 50% 70% 90% 150% 200% 900%. To me when you read "1609 %" yield, i consider it's 16 times worth of the "base" pumpjack, that would be a 100% yield,(10 crude per second written when hovering a single pumpjack ) so 200% yield for a ore patch, means 2 pumpjack slot, with 100% yield each or maybe it is 4 with only 50% yield each. Then when you count the dots on the map, you could know the average yield of pumpjack there but you can also see that if you have 602% yield and you know you placed 12 pumpjacks there, then they must have roughly 50% or so on average.
How much oil that represent ? heeee that's difficult to know because it would depend on mining productivity and pumpjack blueprint. Yield though, is the same wether the oupost is powered or not, wether there is prod mining or not, which then allow to compare pumpjacks from map view in the same way as ore patch. ( not the iron/ second, only the "quantity left" which is infinite for oil... so it needs a particular method of representation that may never really be as intuitive as clicking a pumpjack and seeing its production graph overtime could do).
Adding the number of dots to the yield when hovering would be work for you ? Then people gonna ask for the surface of the ore patch in tile, to know how many mining drill can fit, and the average density of the ore patch and so on.
I didn't even know you could wire pump jacks with circuits, i never used before testing for this particular discussion. It can "show ressources", and if the yield is 399%, this means 39.9 crude per second, and the circuit show 39, but if you add or remove beacons and modules it doesn't change that value not even in the circuit. The actual number of dots in such case doesnt matter right ? in my test i only had 1 pumpjack, but it could have been 2 or 3 or 10 for that 399% yield, you would still know how much "base oil per second" the experiment oupost is able to produce. In actual game to me the number of dots is useful "once" or "twice" when you go there first, or maybe a second time to add modules and beacons you didn't have access too earlier , whereas the yield is more of a 2 digit or 3 digit or 4 digit question. "depleted" "well taped" "good reserve" I don't go into fancy math in game as much as i do in the forum just to get rules of thumbs, i try to avoid using spreadsheet when playing although some alt tabbing is sometimes necesary i hope it will be less with the future combinators but i'm not sure how it could happen for the yield of pumpjacks to make more sense for intuition, apart from adding the number of dots.
Not sure if it waste uranium or not, the main reasonning for using the infinite ore to build solar was to avoid having to replace mining drills.