Factorio Forums

Sorry for posting my fist post in suggestions, but this was one of the reasons why I've registered in the first place so consider this as my way of saying "Hello!"


While current pollution is quite good - it is too ambiguous to be used everywhere. As such I want to suggest keeping it as "Air Pollution" and introduce another type of pollution to compliment it where it fits the most:


Useless by-products


The premise is simple: Instead of generating air pollutants - produce tremendous amounts (and I mean tremendous) of byproducts as second product.

- Some Buildings can generate only Air pollution (Boilers, coal powered buildings)

- Some can be modified via module upgrade. Module levels will dictate the ratio between pollution and waste,

- Some buildings that can only produce waste could be introduced in the future (I have few ideas - might elaborate further in next thread).

- Buildings that produce waste have one disadvantage: they will refuse to work at all if waste reaches certain amount.

- Lower level modules would allow smaller maximum amount, if it is possible to implement (it will be bad to have mk1, mk2, mk3 waste items with separate max stacks for multitude of reasons), perhaps as a flag that checks waste amount and then modifies production speed by 0 maybe. If it is impossible ignore this.

- Waste has to go somewhere:
- Easy way: Large building "Dumping site" that acts as storage for waste alone, slowly destroys it, and produces pollution.

- Advanced: Works as reversed Mining Drill - generates ore-like piles around itself, that decompose over time generating pollution.



Dumping sites work as very slow converters, allowing players to move main source of pollution to somewhere remote, and well defended, at the expense of very advanced factory chains - Pollution\Waste ratio should be setup high enough, that Large complexes have to rely on trains or multiple high-speed belts.

In the future dumping sites could become areas, where specific (underground?) monsters will spawn, or increase average alien threat on global scale.

Summary:

+ Allows players strategically move pollution clouds
+ Encourages creative building of large high-paced complexes
+ Allows High-productivity excavations to be performed quietly, at the expense of extra heat at Waste plants.
+ Very-very-high pollution clouds at dumping sites could be used for shooting ranges, trap testing, and possibly even stronger monsters in the future.
+ Skill-dependent complexity that can be used for future tech (instead of just upping the price) Relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bxszx60ZwGw
+ Compliments "Harvest all - ruin the planet" playstyle
+ Another end-game time-sink.
+ Relatively easy to understand (Adds ~3 modules and Waste plant)
+ Modular (If this gets attention ill expand this later)

- Adds much more workload on the game
- Forces player to rely on trains, or use very long, multi-line belt highways to be effective



Thoughts? Comments?

This is good concept, and we have been (different variation) discussing it already.

The only technical problem I can see is to make this kind of pollution not destroyable easily. Now when you destroy chest, everything inside is lost, that would be too easy way to get rid of the pollution in the form of items.

I can imagine different solutions.
a) Destroying chest with the pollution items would trigger insane amount of pollution (much more than removing it in the building).
b) Destroying chest with the pollution would create some kind of "pollution dump" entities around that would produce pollution for a long time.
c) Pollution items would just not get destroyed when the chest gets destroyed, these would be thrown on the ground.

Ah sorry didn't know destruction of chests was possible. I've personally only deconstructed them before.

I think realistically would be much better to simply drop them on the ground in form of waste ore - static object with appropriate amount. The kicker is - ore will not decompose by itself and will act as constant source of pollution from now on. Players would need to mine it with Drill in order to get rid of pollution later on.

Easiest way to implement would be to keep current mechanic but check contents upon destruction and if waste is present - generate pollution cloud.


Speaking of items being destroyed - I think with introduction of Dumping sites players will have the ability to destroy unneeded items via these (they could accept any item and treat it as waste item). As such chest destruction can be safely converted into item drop instead.


If everything else fails - one of the reason of high Waste\Pollution ratio was to deter players from doing such a thing - I believe chest destruction cannot be automated with ratio high enough players simply wont be fast enough destroying waste manually to keep their complexes running

This is the future and we are getting to other solar systems. It is reasonable to say we have perfected the art of recycling ANYTHING with enough power/resources. Perhaps have a trash dump and a recycling center? Reclaim some of the lost goods.

There should be different types of waste.
Organic: any assembling process creates it as of now, but creeper corpses act as organic waste. Decomposes fast, and doesnt produce pollution, when decomposing it fertiles the soil, and can turn soils into other soils.Positive waste.
Inorganic (non contaminant): created by small pieces of iron and other metals wasted in assembling process, is not contaminant on its own, but you need to get rid of it.

• -Reciclable: It is possible to turn it into plates again, without polluting.
  -Non reciclable: It is not efficient to recycle it, so you need to get rid of it, and this is something that creepers dont like. (Non-chemical pollution)

Inorganic (contaminant): Created by nocive metals (like mercurium) You need to get rid pf it, but it contaminates on its own.
Inorganic (Radioactive) You need to get rid of this... But you need to be cautelous, since this will also affect your health if you dont.

The ways to get rid of waste can be different.
You can just dump them on water, creepers will never like this, and they will get more or less angry depending of the waste.
Wastelands: You can store inorganic non contaminants, and inorganic contaminants, but creepers wont like you to store contaminants here.
Warehouses: Not much capacity, you can store inorganic non-contaminants and creepers wont care, same for inorganic contaminants.
Nuclear cementeries (not sure if thats the name in english so if it sounds creepy for you thats the name in spanish) Underground bunkers to store nuclear waste, creepers dont like you to use nuclear energy, so they will hate this no matter how carefull you are, but you need to be carefull, because it is also your health.

Maybe having at disposal just a pollution table, where we can see every building pollution rate could be usefull to many usefull.

2 Darthlawsuit

I don't think recycling is viable in my suggestion: the pollution I was talking about was not from waste per se but from byproducts

- You mine ore - you get a ton of dirt and ore drill outputs both for maximum yield of ore, or uses current pollution mechanic for standard output
- You burn coal - CO and CO2 instead of being released right there are neutralized/condensed/pressurized into small packages and shipped elsewhere

In both scenarios recycling is simply impossible - dirt has been already stripped from anything valuable, while carbon oxides would require more energy to be turned back into anything efficient than the amount they would yield by being burned at boiler.

Also this suggestion is not about pollution itself it is about advanced conveyor management - this is a tool for experienced players to push their factory to the limits by increasing the complexity of the system. At the moment i cannot imagine similar setup being implemented via recycling.


2 ficolas

While having different types of waste might be interesting I don't think the game is ready yet for them, however having different types of pollution management (Item-type waste containers on conveyor belts and Liquid-type in pipes) is viable. Current mild outrage at nonstackable damaged walls is fine example.

Organic/inorganic can be lumped together as waste container type - we don't really care if they mix as long as they are far away from us

Contaminant\Radioactive - these could be added later as separate types, but for now Factorio simply does not produce anything closely related in large quantities.

About different waste disposals - I agree. In fact it would be fun to have multiple disposals per type with one being the most efficient. Players can then decide themselves how will they treat the land\water.

Good suggestions, but the main problems I see are that...

Currently there is no renewable/player driven anti-pollution system in place. Adding more pollution methods without actually adding ways of mitigating is simply not a good idea. Add mitigation first THEN add more pollution concepts.

Second issue is that we are essentially supposed to be sort of in the future. I mean... on an alien world people. We have the means of dealing with waste. It's simply impractical and 'expensive' and people/companies cannot be bothered with it. I suspect in the future this will be different. So we need to realise that while this will always remain a problem, it will be a problem that should never become that big of a deal should we end up on another planet. Unless of course the person ending up on said planet doesn't care one bit about the environment or local wildlife *cough cough*

There is anti-pollution system in the game - time.

Besides that, my suggestion is actually about pollution removal and transportation, not generation - in my first post i suggested this mechanic as an alternative to current pollution meaning you get ether one or the other. not to mention waste dumps.

I don't agree that future argument applies - first of all we are alone there is no might of human civilization behind us, just general knowledge. That is why we are using coal-powered steam engines, not fusion reactors.

On another note - how would you expect to "recycle" dirt, or gravel? or carbon oxide gasses?

Garm wrote:There is anti-pollution system in the game - time.

Besides that, my suggestion is actually about pollution removal and transportation, not generation - in my first post i suggested this mechanic as an alternative to current pollution meaning you get ether one or the other. not to mention waste dumps.

I don't agree that future argument applies - first of all we are alone there is no might of human civilization behind us, just general knowledge. That is why we are using coal-powered steam engines, not fusion reactors.

On another note - how would you expect to "recycle" dirt, or gravel? or carbon oxide gasses?

I get that, but what I'm saying is that currently pollution serves one primary function. Attract the biters. Beyond that it accomplishes nothing. It would be a largely pointless game 'mechanic'. That is why the 'generation' and mitigation is important. What is the purpose of this 'waste' other than 1. Attracting biters 2. Taking up space. Well the biters... would be a problem. A problem that currently has no mitigation other than trees, which cannot as of yet be replanted. Taking up space... that is kind of gimmicky in a game where you can stuff 3k 'units' into a chest that takes up one space.

So I guess, what is the point? What is the end goal of this aside from adding a challenge or mechanic that would serve no purpose other than annoy players for the sake of realism.

It is an optional mechanic for these, who want to challenge themselves.

It can also be used as stepping stone towards more advanced pollution mechanics.

Same reasoning "to annoy players" can be as easily applied towards current pollution mechanic, but its not about that. Neither is this suggestion. It is about balance - how much time and resources will player use to perform a specific goal?

Will he go for easy but dirty way? or will he try going clean but expensive?

my suggestion revolves around another balance like that: Will player use easy, but inefficient setup, or will he opt out for complex but efficient one?


The difference in my approach is that i view complexity differently, and as such i do not want complexity being defined by the amount of solar panels, or laser turrets player has to build. I want players to think to create something new - how to make efficient waste removal complex to squeeze that last tiny drop of efficiency out of his complex. How to route all that junk. The endgame questions.

Garm wrote:It is an optional mechanic for these, who want to challenge themselves.

It can also be used as stepping stone towards more advanced pollution mechanics.

Same reasoning "to annoy players" can be as easily applied towards current pollution mechanic, but its not about that. Neither is this suggestion. It is about balance - how much time and resources will player use to perform a specific goal?

Will he go for easy but dirty way? or will he try going clean but expensive?

my suggestion revolves around another balance like that: Will player use easy, but inefficient setup, or will he opt out for complex but efficient one?


The difference in my approach is that i view complexity differently, and as such i do not want complexity being defined by the amount of solar panels, or laser turrets player has to build. I want players to think to create something new - how to make efficient waste removal complex to squeeze that last tiny drop of efficiency out of his complex. How to route all that junk. The endgame questions.

That's exactly what I'm trying to say though. "Clean" isn't really a viable alternative right now. It's dirty or nothing. Really the only way to play clean now is to use as much solar as possible and use the power reduction modules. Beyond that you cannot really play clean.

Before you can add more pollution mechanics and it remain viable and balanced is by first adding more methods of being clean. I think the ideas are good and solid, but you're adding more towards one end and not considering the other at all. And I can't see it being 'optional' really working tbh.

Define "clean" as you see it.

I see absence of pollution as "being clean"

This suggestion is biased towards pollution for a reason: it is my initial suggestion for battling "absence of consequences" outlined better in another thread.


I also do not agree with equal balance, I think games tend to loose a lot of uniqueness due to trying to appease everybody. I don't want pollution mechanic to degrade into abused good/evil or paragon/renegade adage.

Garm wrote:Define "clean" as you see it.

I see absence of pollution as "being clean"

This suggestion is biased towards pollution for a reason: it is my initial suggestion for battling "absence of consequences" outlined better in another thread.


I also do not agree with equal balance, I think games tend to loose a lot of uniqueness due to trying to appease everybody. I don't want pollution mechanic to degrade into abused good/evil or paragon/renegade adage.

I hadn't seen that post. Good read though. Good suggestions, to a point imo.

Clean to me is options to minimize or eliminate waste and pollution. Aside from the power reduction module and solar power we as the players have no options available to us to affect pollution in a clean way.

I don't agree with a equal balance either. However there is equal, then there is not even close. Sure you can remain 'clean' by simply not building a factory at all. Why play the game then? Just sit alone on the planet doing nothing. Cause that's fun. Fact is even being able to plant and grow/regrow trees would be a massive improvement. That would be enough for me to add more pollution options.

Hell I wouldn't even be against adding waste byproducts, provided that we would have the option of 'destroying' them if we wanted for a large quick pollution hit. Perhaps in a way that you could send the rubbish off to a distant place on the map. Grow a massive forest around the place. Then occasionally burn it all. So it causes the massive pollution hit, but is absorbed by the local forest.

Clean or not clean is very much analogical good or evil. You cannot escape that, it WILL end up being the case. Simply adding more pollution than mitigation or 'clean' alternatives because YOU want it to be hard and YOU want to scar the landscape with your factories is not really a good direction to go. Just because that is how we currently in real life exist does not mean that is how we should consider our planned future to be. There is nothing wrong with the pollution being a challenge and potentially scarring aspect of the game. I've nothing against that. But balance is important. Equal or not it doesn't matter. If you are adding 'unavoidable' pollution mechanics to the game with no alternatives, no clean options and no player-controlled mitigation then you're foregoing realism for the sake of challenging gameplay. I love the idea of having a lasting impact on the world. I love that a lot. But not necessarily in the form of waste that we cannot deal with aside from shifting it off somewhere.

I guess the problem I see is that what you would find fun, others including myself might just find tedious. The current pollution mechanics replaced the old mechanics of biters simply attacking at regular intervals based on the presence of certain buildings iirc. The way you describe 'waste' just sounds annoying. Not fun, not even challenging. Just annoying. Not everyone plays a game for the challenge. Especially when it comes to a sandbox game. I suppose in that respect you could make it optional. But there are much better things they could focus on gameplay wise than 'optional' things that I'm sure many people would disable because they are just tedious and annoying.

Also I apologise if I come off harsh, mean or insensitive in my replies. I'm just critical lol.

TGS wrote: Hell I wouldn't even be against adding waste byproducts, provided that we would have the option of 'destroying' them if we wanted for a large quick pollution hit. Perhaps in a way that you could send the rubbish off to a distant place on the map. Grow a massive forest around the place. Then occasionally burn it all. So it causes the massive pollution hit, but is absorbed by the local forest.

Umm that is exactly what this suggestion is about: in the beginning instead of making actual pollution you end up with additional item so first stage of my suggestion decreases active pollution yield by 95-100% of a target building.

You end up with inert items that do not generate pollution, but which you have to get rid of otherwise they will fill more and more chests. The item removal is done at areas designated by player by converting these inert items (and freeing space for more) into pollution.


My suggestion provides you with ability to nullify pollution (while storage permits) at crucial areas or in crucial times, and to decide when and where to release pollution (player build dump sites).

I never said that you cant build dumping sites near forests.

Here is excerpt from first post

Garm wrote:
....

- Waste has to go somewhere:
- Easy way: Large building "Dumping site" that acts as storage for waste alone, slowly destroys it, and produces pollution.

- Advanced: Works as reversed Mining Drill - generates ore-like piles around itself, that decompose over time generating pollution.



Dumping sites work as very slow converters, allowing players to move main source of pollution to somewhere remote, and well defended, at the expense of very advanced factory chains - Pollution\Waste ratio should be setup high enough, that Large complexes have to rely on trains or multiple high-speed belts.

In the future dumping sites could become areas, where specific (underground?) monsters will spawn, or increase average alien threat on global scale.

....

+ Allows players strategically move pollution clouds
....
+ Allows High-productivity excavations to be performed quietly, at the expense of extra heat at Waste plants.

....

I never suggested, that players will be stuck with ever-growing chests of waste.

TGS wrote: Clean or not clean is very much analogical good or evil. You cannot escape that, it WILL end up being the case. Simply adding more pollution than mitigation or 'clean' alternatives because YOU want it to be hard and YOU want to scar the landscape with your factories is not really a good direction to go. Just because that is how we currently in real life exist does not mean that is how we should consider our planned future to be. There is nothing wrong with the pollution being a challenge and potentially scarring aspect of the game. I've nothing against that. But balance is important. Equal or not it doesn't matter. If you are adding 'unavoidable' pollution mechanics to the game with no alternatives, no clean options and no player-controlled mitigation then you're foregoing realism for the sake of challenging gameplay. I love the idea of having a lasting impact on the world. I love that a lot. But not necessarily in the form of waste that we cannot deal with aside from shifting it off somewhere.

Thats not what i've implied by referencing good/evil. I was talking about major misconception in games where "good" becomes intended playstyle of the game simply because it is "good". Right now pollution is an obstacle, which we overcome by various play-styles. In balanced clean\dirty pollution becomes a goal, which some players would strive towards due to roleplay reasons alone.

Garm wrote:While current pollution is quite good - it is too ambiguous to be used everywhere. As such I want to suggest keeping it as "Air Pollution" and introduce another type of pollution to compliment it where it fits the most:

Ah right, well this is where I was getting confused. You made it sound like you were suggesting a pure addition on top of what already exists. Which, to put simply. Would be bad. At least it would be bad if the player wasn't given additional tools to deal with pollution, not just your suggested pollution but all pollution.

Cause lets face it, at the end of the day at the end of the game you are going to end up with pollution, probably a lot of it. Even if you follow the current 'clean' practices available to use (Power reduction modules, solar etc) You simply cannot not have pollution. Now if you added another aspect of that on top, without any decent way of dealing with it you end up with a problem. And yes obviously you could burn it and be done with it. But for balance sake if you burned it you'd take a big pollution hit. Which in turn negates all the clean you are trying to accomplish.

I will explain by describing my play style with the game so far. I enjoy having the biters, however I enjoy also being able to control and mitigate my pollution so that if I want to be relatively left alone I can be. Sure I could change the settings so they are always peaceful to start with, or that there are very few of them. But I like doing it through gameplay. This is just me personally of course. The point I'm getting across is that I like the ideas. Just provided that it doesn't become a "Lets add more challenge with nothing to counter it" concept. That is bad.

As pointed out, this is largely a sandbox at present. If I wanna go 'green' I should have that option. That being said, it is Factorio. It is built around factories. You cannot have factories without pollution. But you should be able to minimize your pollution by a fairly good margin.

In regards to the good vs evil thing. That is the great thing about a sandbox imo. If you wanna be evil, you can be. But the path doesn't have to be clear. In this case, it just happens to be clear based on human understanding as it stands now. We see clean/green/renewable as good and wasteful/polluted/dirty as bad. I'm not saying at all that you should be forced into the 'good'. Just that it should be an option, the way you outlined the suggestions kind of seemed to tilt in the direction of a 'no win scenario' with regards to the waste. Either you had the waste, or you had the pollution. There was no clean option. Coupled with the fact that there currently are few 'cleaner' options it struck me as odd. Other than that, great suggestions!

This is a good quote: "you cannot have factories without pollution."

But this is not even a big discussion here, it's all over the world and it depends so much on that! 100% recycling should be a target, very, very, very complicated to achieve, but possible!

And I think, the pollution is the second big thing in factorio, besides the belts and inserters (everything else has been anywhere in other games). Because of that fact, I think we need to play with it. Thinking in levels, I can imagine some levels, where the pollution must be below a certain level. Other levels, where there is no difference and other, where the pollution, must be as high as possible (to awake the big monster worm .

And to be able to play with it, we need to change it. and that means, that we can decrease the pollution or increase it. And the modules are a fine thing to achieve that. But there should be other ways, more stuff, complicated stuff...

ssilk wrote:This is a good quote: "you cannot have factories without pollution."

But this is not even a big discussion here, it's all over the world and it depends so much on that! 100% recycling should be a target, very, very, very complicated to achieve, but possible!

And I think, the pollution is the second big thing in factorio, besides the belts and inserters (everything else has been anywhere in other games). Because of that fact, I think we need to play with it. Thinking in levels, I can imagine some levels, where the pollution must be below a certain level. Other levels, where there is no difference and other, where the pollution, must be as high as possible (to awake the big monster worm .

And to be able to play with it, we need to change it. and that means, that we can decrease the pollution or increase it. And the modules are a fine thing to achieve that. But there should be other ways, more stuff, complicated stuff...

LOL I like your thinking. On the levels. And of course on "Big monster worm" I think big monster worm needs to be a thing. Haha

Garm wrote:There is anti-pollution system in the game - time.

Besides that, my suggestion is actually about pollution removal and transportation, not generation - in my first post i suggested this mechanic as an alternative to current pollution meaning you get ether one or the other. not to mention waste dumps.

I don't agree that future argument applies - first of all we are alone there is no might of human civilization behind us, just general knowledge. That is why we are using coal-powered steam engines, not fusion reactors.

On another note - how would you expect to "recycle" dirt, or gravel? or carbon oxide gasses?

Dirt- Fill in lakes
Gravel - Make railroad tracks
Carbon Oxides - Current Pollution