Power - I JUST DON'T GET IT

[Trego]

5 hours ago, turbonl64 said:

 

So getting back to this as I promised: You are basically right from a FM spamming situation. Again, I don't really do that as I feel it's an exploit, but that is self-handicapping and does not contradict your point. So, no: regarding FM's power production is not difficult. As mentioned though, I think that will be nerved (they already made the game quite easy with the early release update; I don't think they want to give such an easy bailout on energy issues), nevermind the easy way of getting rid of all of the unwanted polluted water.

Let me rephrase my previous comment on primary and secondary functions into a question: Do you build 20-30 FMs primarily for fertilizer? Or do you do it primarily for getting rid of excessive polluted water and creating energy, with the fertilizer a needed but also now in excessive amounts byproduct?

You are not saying anything wrong, but there has been nothing up to this point that defeated my original point "HG power is too difficult to exploit, FM power is very easy to exploit". Infact you and Kasuha have only given more arguments in favor of that hypothesis.

Do you want to reply to my message claiming you don't usually get to start out with 10 NG Geysers at 25% of the map?

If you call using a structure where you disagree with Klei's intentional balancing an "exploit", then what do you call using actual bugs, like the temperature not changing in pipes bug, or the current new one with quick temperature changes using a small amount of liquid on top of a full tile of liquid?What if someone responds to your initial post in this thread by saying not using filters is an exploit?  What I find difficult to understand is the juxtaposition of you telling others how to play the game, that they are wrong for not playing efficiently in a way you like, and then deciding in another instance that the game is too easy if played as intentionally designed by Klei and that Klei's decisions amount to leaving an exploit in the game intentionally.   Why do you feel you should be telling everyone else how to play this game?  This is a single player game, I just don't see the value in trying to have everyone play the same way.  

As to your question about FMs--I build them primarily for getting rid of excessive polluted water in an elegant way.  I'm not sure how you think they will be nerfed.  Maybe they'll be nerfed by making them use more polluted water, that'd be great   Removing them from the game entirely wouldn't make the game harder for me, really, I tend not to build them til very late and I'm making my base more elegant, not more sustainable.  It'd just result in the bottom third of the map becoming a huge polluted water tank, which is less elegant, but not very difficult to accomplish.

You don't need to exploit power, would be my response to that.  It's already super plentiful.  I started a new base, found less gas geysers this time as you predicted...so I trapped some hatches and built some sustainable coal generators.  Kasuha plays very small bases in terms of dupe numbers, I play bases that usually end up with between 24-50 dupes.  I tend to build 2-3 hydrogen generators long before I build any FMs, so yes, hydrogen generation seems much more powerful and meaningful to me.  Like I said in my very first post in this thread, number of dupes has a huge impact on power balancing.  Of course, when you have only 4-5 dupes, that 1 hydrogen generator is much more impactful.

your last question--I just did.  I'll elaborate.  My newest base, shorter on gas geysers, I'm at cycle 210, 24 dupes, 3 gas geysers powering 5 NGG, 2 hydrogen generators, 4 coal generators powered by trapped hatches, and 5 hamster wheels.  10kW power generation, relatively early, with bad luck finding geysers, but I'm only actually using 3kW of it on average, because power is way more plentiful than needed. That's why I build FM's, but only late, and make extra large farms fertilized with polluted water (most of which is fertilized by phosphoros not fertilizer, sadly), because I'm trying to make my base elegant, which means using up a ton of polluted water, power has very little to do with it--If they removed the natural gas generation from FMs I'm probably build them sooner, as then I could just build 1 or 2 anywhere,  instead of waiting to build an industrial size enclosed facility of them.  My next task is to build some cooling systems, then I'll probably build an enclosed FM facility, then I'll build some meal and pincha farms.

 

PS.  Am I the only one who feels like the nerf to steam geysers is affecting his play much more than the nerf to gas geysers?  with the new geyser nerf, I'd much rather have 2 steam geysers and 1 gas geyser early than the other way round.  Everyone's complaining about having gotten used to unlimited gas...well I got used to unlimited water :*(

[Guest]

2 hours ago, Trego said:

If you call using a structure where you disagree with Klei's intentional balancing an "exploit", then what do you call using actual bugs, like the temperature not changing in pipes bug, or the current new one with quick temperature changes using a small amount of liquid on top of a full tile of liquid?

Exploiting a bug? Common, do we need to discuss semantics? Exploiting is the word I used; it can be used for game mechanics or bugs. You know just as well as me that both have been patched to stop exploits in the past. If it happens again in this case is something we'll have to see. In my opinion it will be. In my opinion, meaning somebody else is perfectly entitled to their own opinion and meaning it's not necessarily fact.

Quote

What I find difficult to understand is the juxtaposition of you telling others how to play the game, that they are wrong for not playing efficiently in a way you like, and then deciding in another instance that the game is too easy if played as intentionally designed by Klei and that Klei's decisions amount to leaving an exploit in the game intentionally.   Why do you feel you should be telling everyone else how to play this game?  This is a single player game, I just don't see the value in trying to have everyone play the same way.  

I'm going to stop you right there. This is trying to put words in my mouth and trying to banalise my own words towards something I never stated or intent. I'm going to state this clearly, and only once. I hope after that this never gets brought up again: Everybody plays the game how he/she likes. Just because I'm discussing the game from my own perspective, does not mean somebody else has to play the game accordingly. I have fully respect for somebody's opinions, and I expect the same in curtosy.

I am now going to ask in a very friendly manner: please stop trying to put me down as some sort of pushy character. I really am scratching my head where you got that in your head. I made it perfectly clear that for instance me not using FM's as an easy access to power, is self-handicapping, and my own concern. I said that literally in my previous post. I fail to see how you concluded from that somebody should play the game accordingly. So would you kindly argue the content of my posts, and would you kindly stop argueing simply to argue? I will not reply anymore to this kind of discussion as it is both factually wrong (yes, factual) and way off topic. Thank you in advance.

Quote

As to your question about FMs--I build them primarily for getting rid of excessive polluted water in an elegant way.  I'm not sure how you think they will be nerfed.  Maybe they'll be nerfed by making them use more polluted water, that'd be great   Removing them from the game entirely wouldn't make the game harder for me, really, I tend not to build them til very late and I'm making my base more elegant, not more sustainable.  It'd just result in the bottom third of the map becoming a huge polluted water tank, which is less elegant, but not very difficult to accomplish.

In all honesty, I think a much reduced output of natural gas would just do fine. So instead of the 20g/s, Maybe around 4 or 5, combined with reduced fertilizer production (and let me make it clear: that's my own opinion; there's no obligation at all to agree). Just enough to be a hindrance. Or alternatively, simply increase energy demand. If it asked 240W you would have neglgible returns. This is also where I like to state why I feel it's a game mechanic exploit: obviously the fertilizer maker was created with synergy in mind. But let's be 100% honest and go on a limb: logically speaking, the game developers did not conceptualize the fertilizer maker as a means to get rid of polluter water or to be a handy gas production building. It was conceptualized as an advanced means to produce fertilizer, with synergies towards gas production and being fed by polluted water as a source, pretty much just like some plants with the hydrophonic plant tiles (please don't shoot me if I got the name wrong). I think there's little to argue towards an intended concept when the name is literally "fertilizer maker". If it was meant as primary function to remove polluted water, I'd be called perhaps the microwave emitter (yes, a Batman Begins reference :P) or if it was intended in the first place as means to produce natural gas, it'd be called perhaps Natural Gas Extractor. It's called an early release (is it still officially a public beta?) for something as things are still being tweaked. The developers cannot get everything right from the beginning and as we have seen in the past, often times intended concepts miss their target. at which point, the developers adjust to get it back matched to that concept. Will that happen in this case? I personally think it will, but that's again my opinion and that can be perfectly wrong. Time will tell.

For the record, I don't want the fertilizer maker dissapear. The concept is awesome as it offers a higher level of sustainability.

Quote

You don't need to exploit power, would be my response to that.  It's already super plentiful.  I started a new base, found less gas geysers this time as you predicted...so I trapped some hatches and built some sustainable coal generators.  Kasuha plays very small bases in terms of dupe numbers, I play bases that usually end up with between 24-50 dupes.  I tend to build 2-3 hydrogen generators long before I build any FMs, so yes, hydrogen generation seems much more powerful and meaningful to me.  Like I said in my very first post in this thread, number of dupes has a huge impact on power balancing.  Of course, when you have only 4-5 dupes, that 1 hydrogen generator is much more impactful.

I agree - you don't need to exploit power. I myself do perfectly fine without dependency on FM power. I neither use hatches for coal production, but I comment you for the effort. I'm currently running 27 dupes myself, and I satisfy power demand with my single HG and 6 NG geysers, with early depedency on hamster wheels. I do want to remark that although I am doing perfectly fine, I could have made my life a hell of a lot easier by going for FM batteries instead of digging to the top of the map. Again, that's my own choice. I'm glad I refrained from using them though, as it forced me explore the map and be creative with energy demand.

Quote

PS.  Am I the only one who feels like the nerf to steam geysers is affecting his play much more than the nerf to gas geysers?  with the new geyser nerf, I'd much rather have 2 steam geysers and 1 gas geyser early than the other way round.  Everyone's complaining about having gotten used to unlimited gas...well I got used to unlimited water :*(

Actually, I'm very glad they made that change. My previous colony got flooded as I could not consume enough water. Shows me digging everywhere >.< . Also, if you look at a topic I started, I openly questioned if gas production pre patch was a bug (it was) as I found being able to hook 4 gas generators on one single geyser overkill. Then, somebody came along and explained you could actually hook up 7 generators and still have a surplus. Yeah, I'm glad both types of geysers got fixed.

[Trego]

You've misunderstood my post.  I referenced the parallel between using FMs for efficiency, which you feel to be an exploit, and forgoing filters for efficiency, which you command people to do quite vigourously, and the apparent contradiction between these stances, but you are not interpreting my argument correctly. 

On 6/5/2017 at 8:47 AM, turbonl64 said:

And never use a gas filter for geysers! put the pump on it, box it in and let it pump the gas out. 

35 minutes ago, turbonl64 said:

I'm going to stop you right there. This is trying to put words in my mouth and trying to banalise my own words towards something I never stated or intent.

I'm not putting words in your mouth...those are your words.  You even emphasize how serious you are about telling us how to play, by adding in the exclamation point.  I think you should consider trying to calm down and slow down.  You're one second yelling at people to play more efficiently, the next you're going on about how a building is so efficient that using it as intended constitutes an exploit.  One minute you are saying not to argue semantics and that everyone has a right to their opinion, the next you're saying not to put words in your mouth and calling people factually wrong, without asking them first exactly what they were referring to.  Give others the benefit of the doubt; don't assume that misunderstandings stem for malice; don't be the first to start using insults.  Just try that out, ok?  Then we can stick to talking about game mechanics.

[Guest]

7 minutes ago, Trego said:

You've misunderstood my post.  I referenced the parallel between using FMs for efficiency, which you feel to be an exploit, and forgoing filters for efficiency, which you tell people not to do, and the apparent contradiction between these stances, but you are not interpreting my argument correctly.

That's not parallel. I'm just clearing the room so I don't need to use a filter anyway. And yes, I got it a bit wrong in my head, where I was going for a filter for each geysers, as opposed to just using one filter for a whole bound of geysers. The wrong reasoning is a consequence perhaps of never using filters.

Quote

'm not putting words in your mouth...those are your words.  You even emphasize how serious you are about telling us how to play, by adding in the exclamation point.  I think you should consider trying to calm down and slow down.  You're one second yelling at people to play more efficiently, the next you're going on about how a building is so efficient that using it as intended constitutes an exploit.  One minute you are saying not to argue semantics and that everyone has a right to their opinion, the next you're saying not to put words in your mouth and calling people factually wrong, without asking them first exactly what they were referring to.  Give others the benefit of the doubt; don't assume that misunderstandings stem for malice; don't be the first to start using insults.  Just try that out, ok?

I'm not going to discuss this any further as mentioned. Only thing I want to add to that is: no, no and no. Just no . (that's not an answer to that final line, for the record). The moderator asked to stay on topic, can we do that?

[Trego]

Ok, fair enough, topic is Power, any more questions?

[Kasuha]

9 hours ago, Lifegrow said:

Having a pump at each geyser (even on atmo switches) definitely uses more power, due to the delay in switch-toggling. Even if you set your atmo to above 2kg, you'll still occasionally find the "insta-vacuum" occurrences lead to partial packets of gas.

Okay so I ran an experiment. Left a pump with atmo switch at a gas geyser on a battery, disconnected from all power sources, then I summed up all gas packets sent to the pipe for a while and in the end I checked the energy consumption.

In total, 21750 g of gas was transferred, and 10371 J of energy was spent. That results in 238 J per 500 g of gas (out of nominal 240 J per 500 g), suggesting the pump is not any less efficient in that configuration.

 

Edit: here's the setup:

[Nativel]

On 03.06.2017 at 11:32 PM, Masterpintsman said:

Box in the geyser in a 3*3 (inside) tile wall, with the gas pump and an atmo switch (set to above 800 or so) and you can deconstruct the gas filter as soon as you got rid of anything not natural gas in that box. The switch will lead to the pump only running ~1/4 of the time - ~300W saved.

then your gaiser will give only 60g/s instead of 120 or 300 natural gas with can be used to generate power, so you save about 120W and loose about 800.

[Guest]

24 minutes ago, Nativel said:

then your gaiser will give only 60g/s instead of 120 or 300 natural gas with can be used to generate power, so you save about 120W and loose about 800.

I don't have that issue. I do leave a bit of room in my enclosed box for the geyser. I think you have to make sure not to put tiles on the geyser cells.

Edit: oops, did not read the previous post properly. Yeah, a 3x3 box does look to be too small. I think you need 5x5 at a minimum. Is there a problem for the atmo switch?

[Nativel]

4 minutes ago, turbonl64 said:

I don't have that issue. I do leave a bit of room in my enclosed box for the geyser. I think you have to make sure not to put tiles on the geyser cells.

Edit: oops, did not read the previous post properly. Yeah, a 3x3 box does look to be too small. I think you need 5x5 at a minimum. Is there a problem for the atmo switch?

place you pump in bottom of the gaiser and place swith near it set it up to abouve 200 and pump shuld be from gold amalgalm so it wont overheated. I can show it give me like 15 mins

[Nativel]

 

[Lifegrow]

3 hours ago, Kasuha said:

Okay so I ran an experiment. Left a pump with atmo switch at a gas geyser on a battery, disconnected from all power sources, then I summed up all gas packets sent to the pipe for a while and in the end I checked the energy consumption.

In total, 21750 g of gas was transferred, and 10371 J of energy was spent. That results in 238 J per 500 g of gas (out of nominal 240 J per 500 g), suggesting the pump is not any less efficient in that configuration.

 

Edit: here's the setup:

Hmmm, maybe my problem was the size of the chamber then... Since the release i'd always allowed a large space for the gas to disperse to when I capped them, being a greedy sod for more free gas basically  So by placing the pump in a 3x3 you're slurping it up immediately and efficiently. Interesting. 

The only variable I don't see here is the time taken? I.e. I needed to feed 8 hungry generators - so almost a fully saturated pipe at all times ideally, not sure if i've worded that correctly, i'm sleepy as hell  My system had 5 geysers feeding 8 gens. 500g/s average could have supplied 8.3 gens, so I always had a slight surplus, meaning my pipe was often backlogged and the pumps were sporadically active... Does that make any sense? What I mean is, because i'd allowed the gasses from all geysers to merge into once glorious orange tunnel of love, the pumps could maintain hefty packets and saturated pipes.

[Nativel]

Did you place switсh over there? Do you turn it on and off manually every time when your battery lack of power?

[Nativel]

 

[Kasuha]

4 hours ago, Lifegrow said:

Hmmm, maybe my problem was the size of the chamber then... Since the release i'd always allowed a large space for the gas to disperse to when I capped them

I would expect my setup to be the worst case. Since the pump only removes gas from under itself, with less space around it there are less tiles from which the gas can flow to under the pump. But placing the switch right next to the pump is important, even in larger enclosure.

4 hours ago, Lifegrow said:

The only variable I don't see here is the time taken?

I did not measure time. The point of the experiment was efficiency of the pump when switching off and on. There were five geyser bursts and the pump transported 3000 to 4500 g of gas to the pipe during each of them. Five bursts seemed like large enough sample to me.

 

[Masterpintsman]

The only upside of a bigger chamber (than 3x3 inside centered on the geyser) is that you could cache more gas, which is pointless as you'll normally would want to constantly use it up anyways.

[Guest]

8 hours ago, Nativel said:

 

Ah ok, so if the room overpressurizes (or goes to a certain air pressure) the geyser output will lower to 60g/s. That's good to know as I was going to apply that solution.

[Kasuha]

9 hours ago, Lifegrow said:

The only variable I don't see here is the time taken?

Okay so I tested how much gas does the pump scoop over the period of the gas eruption. Over two eruptions it was 59.25 and 59.75 kg, close enough to nominal 60 kg in my opinion, taking some variation in the enclosure gas pressure into account.

So I think I'm fine with how it works and how efficient it is.