Factorio Forums

Hi, I am pretty new and enjoy playing factorio a lot. However, there are some game mechanics, I do not like, because they trivialize and make the game too easy and brainless.

And one of those mechanics is the free energy given by solar panels.
Why is free energy bad? Because it provides the player with an obvious choice and optimal solution(100% solar panels and accumulators) to a certain problem (energy management) and therefore limits strategic considerations and different playstyles.

My simple solution to this is changing solar panels so that they break after producing a certain amount of energy. My proposal is that each solar module is able to produce energy of 600 MJ which results in a life span of ~2,5h.

As the player can utilize Drones and automated building, rebuilding and replacing broken solarpanels automatically should not interfere with the gameplay in an annoying way, but instead, it opens up 2 viable different playstyles how a player can manage his energy:


1, Solar modules + Accumulator focused (as it is now)

This method has the advantage of producing very low pollution, however, the 50% efficiency of your accumulators will make rebuilding your solar panels pretty resource intensive, because you need more solar panels for the same amount of energy

2, No/Low number of Accumulators + Steamenergy Backup + (Solar Modules)

In this case you are more resource conservative, as you dont have to reproduce Solar moduls very often. Also you can make good use of your coal, but the disadvantage is, that this method leads to more pollution, as you need to burn lots of flameables.


Another aspect of my suggestion is, that modules may become also a lot more interesting and lead to more "dedicated choices" if energy is a more valueable resource.

The main point of this idea is, to make a certain content, which is coal and steamenergy, of the game "lategame viable", so that the player can make use of resources like coal, fuel blocks and (trees, if you dont have polution problems).
If you are a perfectionist(what every factorio player should be^^), there is no point to keep your steam engines, but instead you go straight to solar panels + accumulators and do not really have to care much about an interesting concept of the game: energy.
But with my idea, the player will have 2 solutions of how he can handle his energy management which both have their up- and downsides.

I am curious of what you think and I hope you like this suggestion. Please do not base your arguments upon bad balancing. My idea is meant to sketch a certain principle, if it does not fit into the current balancing of the game, its not the fault of the idea, but the current balancing, which is neither set in stone nor given by god

PS.:

Here some additional thoughts I got from the replies:

-Solar panels health degenerate, depending on the energy they produced
-solar panels stack like ammunition
-solar panels cannot be repaired by repairkits anymore
-you can repair/rebuild solar panels by spending solar moduls
-robo ports can be fitted with solar modules(like the repair kits currently) and modules from chests can be used.
-only solar modules with <80% health can be repaired (to avoid drones to be perma-repairing)
(-same for walls maybe)

I like it. +1

maybe something similar to planetbase, in which buildings need maintainance

There is a similar thread running:

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 16&t=15519 Accumulators are too cheap

See especially this
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 10#p115668

I think introducing the idea of breakable things is interesting. But in my sense of logic it cannot be, that solar panels break, but pipes with h2so4 inside not. So logically you need to add more breakable things! If you add breakable things you need to do it with everything! Or much more than ohne item.
And then you will see very soon, that it is not a very handy idea. Think of the pipes or a steam engine or an important power pole, that needs to be replaced: it takes too long.

What already has been suggested and sounds usable is, that items slowly loose their health and needs to be repaired.

Well, I mean, on one hand, if I want to play a game that is like Planetbase, I play Planetbase.
On the other, mechanics like these could make the game slightly more interesting.
However, in my mind it sounds like it will become a giant hassle very quickly.
But the foundational idea- to make the decision coal/solar harder- is not bad. Let's expand on that.
There are two main ways to achieve it: Promote steam or handicap solar in some way.
Let's see if I can find some ways to do that:
-Solar panels break over time
-Solar power fluctuates with weather condition, might even completely miss a day
-Solar power drops as pollution rises

-Steam engines produce lots of power, use little space
-Steam can also provide mechanical power, used to drive special (non-essential?) devices
-Pollution actually comes from boilers. Hot water could be useful in some other way.

A spoon of all, please. Plus more power sources, like wind or nuclear/fusion. It's easy to think of disadvantages of for all kinds of power generation, which other methods don't have (but have others). Like the good old Rock-paper-scissors.

ssilk wrote:There is a similar thread running:

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 16&t=15519 Accumulators are too cheap

See especially this
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 10#p115668

I think introducing the idea of breakable things is interesting. But in my sense of logic it cannot be, that solar panels break, but pipes with h2so4 inside not. So logically you need to add more breakable things! If you add breakable things you need to do it with everything! Or much more than ohne item.
And then you will see very soon, that it is not a very handy idea. Think of the pipes or a steam engine or an important power pole, that needs to be replaced: it takes too long.

What already has been suggested and sounds usable is, that items slowly loose their health and needs to be repaired.

I believe the core of the idea is that solar power is pretty much limitless and cheap. So it needs a downside, maintenance could be it.
Other buildings use items, for example the h2so4 is used up when crafting batteries (also pipes coated with the right material will not suffer damage).

Maybe a modder can make a script that solar panels take X amount of damage Y ticks. A simple roboport with construction bots and repair packs will keep them up and running.

I'm still more of the opinion that Solars should have a downside in weather effects and pollution in the atmosphere, rather than just breaking after a while.
There's no precedent for machine failure in Factorio, so I feel it wouldn't fit the game well to have this mechanic with just one building type.

For example, if the skies above the solar was saturated with pollution, the output would be significantly lowered. This would necessitate expansion bases (away from any factories) dedicated to energy production to get around the issue.
Weather effects with variable wind, cloud cover, perspiration and perhaps even seasons affecting the day-night cycles, would further enhance both the atmosphere (pun not intended) of the game and provide interesting facets of clean energy production.

I think introducing the idea of breakable things is interesting. But in my sense of logic it cannot be, that solar panels break, but pipes with h2so4 inside not. So logically you need to add more breakable things! If you add breakable things you need to do it with everything!

Well, I dont think so.

1, Logic is not most important in a game

2, Solar panels could degenerate because of cosmic radioation maybe? This would be realistic actually^^


There is a thread in this forum by another player who proposed weather depending on pollution(which makes solar panels fluctuate in power generation), but I think this is not a good solution to combat the problem I mentioned, because solar power would still be best option. You'd actually get some kind of positive feedback loop: Building more solar panels makes solar panels even better(because you produce less pollution) which makes coal and steam even less useful.
Weather depending on pollution would just mean, that you build even more solar panels without having to think or make a real choice.


The only disadvantage of breakable solar panels I currently see, is, that it CAN be annoying, if suddenly a bunch of modules break SIMULTAINOUSLY. The reproducing should not be a problem in general, because you can automate it, but having regular major breakdowns is certainly annoying(because usually you build bigger fields of solar modules). However this problem could be fixed, if solar panels get a variable lifespan like 2-2,5h by randomness.

Oh, another problem I see is, that the lifespan mechanic also needs reconsideration of placing and unplacing items. The lifespan would have to be saved somehow. This could be done by unrepairable solar modules, which lifespan is then indicated by its health... Hmm

But then you get another problem, because deconstructing can be annoying ,as you'd get tons of different items with different health in your inventory^^ (you might rember all those walls with different health in your inventory)

For this I actually have a nice idea:
Make solar panels (and maybe also walls) UNREPEAIRABLE (with repairkits), but treat them similar to ammunition and repairkits:

50% solar panel(placed) + 60% solar panel(new) = 1 Solar panel(100%, placed) + 10% solarpanel.

Or if you build a 100% wall over a damaged wall (20% health), the damage wall gets repaired o full health, but you spend "80% wall".

With this method degenerating solar panels could be repaired consistantly. Maybe limit this replacement methods of solar moduls and wall to <80%. Also I think it would be nice, if you can repair walls with walls(^^) because then stone becomes SLIGHTLY more useful.


To summerize my thoughts:

-Solar panels health degenerate, depending on the energy they produced
-solar panels and walls stack like ammunition
-solar panels (and wall) cannot be repaired by repairkits anymore
-you can repair/rebuild solar panels by spending solar moduls
-robo ports can be fitted with solar modules(like the repair kits currently) and modules from chests can be used.
-only solar modules with <80% health can be repaired (to avoid drones to be perma-repairing)
-same for walls maybe

the degeneration would need to have some randomising element, as people rend to place them down many at a time

Sorry, I would find that just annoying: the need to for a second type of "repair pack".

Think to this: Factorio is a game of automation. It will make (game-play wise) no sense to artificially complicate the reparation of solar panels, because it's basically the same principle: produce X and things get repaired automatically.

ssilk wrote:Sorry, I would find that just annoying: the need to for a second type of "repair pack".

Think to this: Factorio is a game of automation. It will make (game-play wise) no sense to artificially complicate the reparation of solar panels, because it's basically the same principle: produce X and things get repaired automatically.

I dont understand?

The solar modules in your inventory ARE the repair packs actually

My suggestion would work like this:

You build solar moduls, which degenerate(=lose health) depending on energy produced, and if you have solar modules in your logistic network, roboports may "refill" the already build solar modules automatically. (This means a "damaged" solar modul gets repaired to 100%)
The process I described is completly automateable.

Did I get you wrong? I did not say that you have to refill modules MANUALLY. NO. Your robo ports repair/refill/exchange your modules. Its works 100% similar to the current blueprint solution.

Its 100% easy and stressfree. The overall idea behind the degeneration of solar modules is that coal/Steamenergy becomes a viable choice, because both energy sources consume resources. Also the quantity of the resource consumption is irrevelevant, the only point is, that the player has the CHOICE between 2 similar good options (solar energy -> iron/copper consumption, steam power -> more pollution, but you use coal instead of iron and copper)

The point of the whole suggestion is not the automation of solar modules, but creating an alternative choice for energy production which is lategame viable.

You have to know that you actually elliminate choice, if one of different choices is obviously a lot better, practical, cheaper etc than the others, because most player tend to optimize their playstyle. And its the game designers skill to provide a lot of unobviously best, different and interesting playstyles

If you have a sword which does 20 damage per second and another sword which does 10 damage per second, how can you say, that the player has 2 options to pick a weapon? And in factorio its analog with solar modules vs steam energy.(under the aspect of a slightly progressed game)
In a well designed game you probably want a sword with 20@1/sec and one with 10@2,5/sec, while attackspeed is penalized because of absolut damage absorption of enemies. (So both options are similar good overall, but each sword has its benefits in certain situation: The fast sword is better vs low armor enemies while the slow sword is good against heavy armored enemies)

And the same principle should be applied to solar modules and steam energy
I call this "Asymetric game design" (I am not a professional, but I am pretty sure, this makes sense). Different options, which are similar good, but each option shines in a certain situation.

Nasabot wrote:

ssilk wrote:Sorry, I would find that just annoying: the need to for a second type of "repair pack".

The process I described is completly automateable.

So why do I have to make it twice? Once for the repair acks, and second for the solar modules?

The overall idea behind the degeneration of solar modules is that coal/Steamenergy becomes a viable choice, because both energy sources consume resources. Also the quantity of the resource consumption is irrevelevant, the only point is, that the player has the CHOICE between 2 similar good options (solar energy -> iron/copper consumption, steam power -> more pollution, but you use coal instead of iron and copper)

What I meant is, that there is no difference game-play wise in using repair packs instead of solar panels to replace/repair the broken panels.

The point of the whole suggestion is not the automation of solar modules, but creating an alternative choice for energy production which is lategame viable.

That assumes, that there are only 2 energy sources. But Factorio can have much more. I already mentioned wind or nuclear power.

Let's assume we have 5 different types of electric energy generation in the end. Then all of them need to be balanced in some way. And then it can be only a matter of taste, which I want to use. After the early game the question for energy is just making it bigger and bigger. Logistic problems.

You have to know that you actually elliminate choice, if one of different choices is obviously a lot better, practical, cheaper etc than the others

But that is a matter of balancing the game. It's not some new suggestion; look into the balancing board, there are half a dozen of discussions around the right balancing of solar vs. steam.

Nasabot wrote: There is a thread in this forum by another player who proposed weather depending on pollution(which makes solar panels fluctuate in power generation), but I think this is not a good solution to combat the problem I mentioned, because solar power would still be best option. You'd actually get some kind of positive feedback loop: Building more solar panels makes solar panels even better(because you produce less pollution) which makes coal and steam even less useful.
Weather depending on pollution would just mean, that you build even more solar panels without having to think or make a real choice.


The only disadvantage of breakable solar panels I currently see, is, that it CAN be annoying, if suddenly a bunch of modules break SIMULTAINOUSLY. The reproducing should not be a problem in general, because you can automate it, but having regular major breakdowns is certainly annoying(because usually you build bigger fields of solar modules). However this problem could be fixed, if solar panels get a variable lifespan like 2-2,5h by randomness.

As a supporter of introducing weather to help balance the usefulness of solars, I have to disagree. When their output can not be reliably depended upon, they may still be "free" energy, but to get it you would have to solve the building puzzle to a much greater degree than you do now, providing a logistical challenge to their construction.

Right now you can indeed just plop them down wherever and be done with it. Bam! Done. Free power.
But if weather & pollution (and biomes) had an impact on their output, you will want to optimize them as best you can, which will greatly impact your factory contruction plans. Building them far away from your bases and other outposts in a desert would be the best due to the abundance of sunlight, but that would at the same time mean you cannot use that space for anything else. As it stands, solars take up a rather huge amount of space compared to steam power for the same output, and that is space you cannot use for laying rail or have mining rigs. Any pollution nearby would attract biters, which would need to be defended against, incurring even higher costs of investment.

These are the same problems when it comes to solars in the real world: Returns vs investment. They do produce free power, yes, but only after you've built expensive (and fragile) arrays that may or may not produce the power you need when you need it. That's where Accumulators come in. They help even the power curve, but also costs a lot of space and resources to build (okey, not that much right now. They could use some cost balancing).
Granted, you can (as you said) just mindlessly build more solars to compensate. This is true, but I think you underestimate the vast areas of land needed (and work required) to account for this unpredictability.
Already you need frankly ridiculous space to make a large factory clean in its energy production aspect. If you wanted to do it with solars affected by weather, I wouldn't be surprised to see you needing up to 3 times (!!) as many solars to make it happen. That's 3 times as much land that needs to be cleared out, prepared and (if you want to build it automatically) seeded with Roboports. Triple the investment cost to get free energy, and pray that no biters get lost among them, or they'll be chopped into pieces. Unless you want to build walls and defenses to surround them, which raises the investment costs even higher.

Compared that to just building some compact Steam arrays, and the coal costs won't seem so bad anymore. Especially since coal is rather plentiful.
Also, as ssilk mentioned, additional power production methods will help to keep your production options balanced.

@ssilk

Ok, now I somehow get what you want to say, but still I see it completly different.
Yes, balancing involves different aspects, but for me, the resource consumption is the most important aspect of balancing. I dont understand, how my way of balancing stuff excludes additional energies? The main aspect of my idea is to have 2 (or more) ways of producing energy, which are similar good, but with DIFFERENT pros and cons.

As a supporter of introducing weather to help balance the usefulness of solars, I have to disagree. When their output can not be reliably depended upon, they may still be "free" energy, but to get it you would have to solve the building puzzle to a much greater degree than you do now, providing a logistical challenge to their construction.

This is another argument which does not fit into my thinking. I know what you mean, but I see it different

My point is, that gameplay needs to be enriched by choice, but your idea of weather influencing solar modules does not add anything to the energy production problem. Fluctuating weather only means: You need MORE solar modules.
Yes, fluctuatingsolar production "nerfes" solar paneles, but it does not overcome the "gamebreaking" element of solar power, which is "free energy"

Dont get me wrong, I am actually >FOR< weather influence, but in my opinion this is another topic and does not solve the "coal vs free energy problem"


I really understand what you both say, but my viewpoint is "philosophically" completly different

The point is, that there are certain game mechanics you CAN NOT balance by changing numbers, but instead you need to change the mechanics itself.

If solar panels cost 100x to produce, I am sure 99% of all player would still build as many solar moduls + batteries, so they wont need need steam energy. If you divide (9999^9999^9999) by "infinite", you still get ZERO^^ And this mathematical analogy is the core of the free energy dilemma. This is because in theory one solar panel can "produce" an infinte amount of coal. Or you need "minus infinite"(?) water boiler, to produce 0 polution/MJ

I mean, if most player like it as it is now, my idea may be discarded, but I think the majority of player would enjoy the game more, if they can play different energy strategies. Currently there are 2 energy playstyles where only 1 of them is "viable". In the current game you CAN use coal/steam in the lategame, but it does not make sense, because the weight of disadvantages(pollution, logistic, finite coal) is MUCH higher, than the advantage (saving an irrelevant amount of iron/copper)


Btw.: I wouldnt mind a different solution, than the one I suggested. What I want is game content, which is lategame viable and allows different useful approaches to certain problems. This is a small list of things which fall into the same category:

-solar vs coal
-laser turret vs gun turret
-bullets vs shells (shotgun has a lot more combat power and also uses only one ~sixteenth of resources per damage. Completly unbalanced)
-efficiency vs productivity/speed modules (because efficiency is irrelevant, as energy is irrelevant. However, efficiency moduls are still ok, because they are useful over a LONG PERIOD of the game. Only in "super lategame" they become useless)
-armor solar modules vs fusion reactor
steel vs electric furnances

Nasabot wrote:In the current game you CAN use coal/steam in the lategame, but it does not make sense, because the weight of disadvantages(pollution, logistic, finite coal) is MUCH higher, than the advantage (saving an irrelevant amount of iron/copper)

and therein lies the issue...
If solars were "nerfed" with weather, the weight advantage is lowered significantly. I don't believe that it's actually an issue of "infinity vs finite", but what the player chooses to build depending on his or her current needs.

In the current game solars are too cheap for what they do, in space, build time, and material cost. The player is heavily incentivised with the quick returns that current solar power brings. You need only a few arrays to take the edge of your energy spikes, and once you got some roboports going then expanding their operations is both quick and painless.

What we need to do here (And I actually do believe you'll agree with me on this) is to adjust the following parameters in the energy production aspect:

Steam pros:
Cheapest to build
Most compact
Reliable

Steam cons:
Upkeep cost
Pollution
Logistics need

Solar pros:
Fairly cheap to build
Infinite energy
No logistics need
Very Reliable

Solar cons:
Takes much space

This is not healthy balance, we both agree on that. What I suggest would take away several of the pros of solars (No logistics need, Fairly cheap to build, Very Reliable). You'd need many more solars for the same output, and if it's cloudy several days in a row you are basically boned without absolutely RIDICULOUS fields of accumulators.
RNG is a bitch (as anyone who played any RPG ever knows). Sure, while you might statistically need 3 times as many solars for the same output, RNG ensures you can never feel completely safe relying solely on them.

Hence, their infinite energy potential is not all it's hyped up to be anymore.
And don't forget my last point about other forms of energy production. I feel the game should encourage players to build several different types of energy production systems to counter each of their flaws, and play upon their strengths.

(... also one of the weather effects suggested was acid rain which actually DOES cause damage to solars, and probably some other buildings as well. It'd just be a cause-and-effect RNG event instead of stuff just breaking once a timer says so)

Nasabot wrote: Yes, balancing involves different aspects, but for me, the resource consumption is the most important aspect of balancing. I dont understand, how my way of balancing stuff excludes additional energies? The main aspect of my idea is to have 2 (or more) ways of producing energy, which are similar good, but with DIFFERENT pros and cons.

Oh, I have no problem with this idea.

The point I want to make is, that there are many other ideas like this. You want to make balancing by resources, but balancing can have many different aspects. Like by introducing weather. Just a simple "summer/winter" cycle can change the usefulness of the solar panels down to "unuseable".

That's also with the next argument:

My point is, that gameplay needs to be enriched by choice, but your idea of weather influencing solar modules does not add anything to the energy production problem. Fluctuating weather only means: You need MORE solar modules.

That is not quite right. If you make solar power so fluctuating, that they don't produce energy at some time, you don't just need more, you need ANOTHER type of energy.

this is another topic and does not solve the "coal vs free energy problem"

As your idea.