Pressure can compress and liquefy

[Henlikuoth]

27 minutes ago, pnambic said:

...

This is precisely the critical point you don't understand.

Compare this with an ARPG like Grim Dawn, Diablo, etc. They are single-player games, especially GD (even D if you ignore the ladders). 

Let's assume there is an overly powerful weapon in the game that makes fights, etc., strangely easy. People are complaining that this weapon is too potent and makes the game too easy. Let's also assume the developers won't do anything; they don't adjust the weapons' capacities and leave them as they are. People continue complaining about the strength of the weapon.

And then, the only argument that comes up is this: "It is just a single-player game. Nobody gives a damn about how others play. You are not forced to use the weapon. Just ignore it then and use other weapons instead."

No, this is not how it works.

GD is known for its massive balancing and constant adjusting of small details. GD wouldn't be that successful if the only argument were to ignore strong items and let other players "enjoy" the game as they please. 

The whole idea of balancing and adjusting any game is undermined if you argue like that.  

Why are so many people pointing out these issues in ONI? They are not a "small" group. You intentionally narrow your vision to avoid seeing the larger picture.

Also, various arguments have already been mentioned in this post. You did not even respond to that. You either did it intentionally, or you REALLY cannot even see/notice the arguments (which indeed seems to be the case).

Based on your reaction now, something has become more explicit about you. You often mention "mental states/issues," etc., when referring to other people. Now, I can see the back-mirroring of that more clearly. I won't say a thing about that here in these forums.

I just hope Klei will find the right "balance" for all. 

 

[pnambic]

If you think infinite storage is OP/a dominant strategy in any meaningful sense, what do you think is the goal of ONI? Hoarding as many resources as possible? Klei have been known to nerf dominant strategies in ways that retain as many options for the players as possible (see e.g. the pulsed tepidizer thing). But that's a moot point...

 

38 minutes ago, Henlikuoth said:

Based on your reaction now, something has become more explicit about you. You often mention "mental states/issues," etc., when referring to other people. Now, I can see the back-mirroring of that more clearly. I won't say a thing about that here in these forums.

I have a psychology degree (besides a CS one) and work in engineering management. Mental states are part of my usual mode of thinking about conflict. What's your excuse for the cheap shot?

Needless to say, this was my last interaction with you on here. Have a nice life.

 

[Henlikuoth]

16 minutes ago, pnambic said:

Needless to say, this was my last interaction with you on here. Have a nice life.

You obviously cannot take what you yourself constantly do, either. 

Yet again, you ignored all arguments and points made by people. You did not respond to even a single point I made. 

[Gurgel]

On 5/23/2024 at 6:40 PM, Genry said:

If a game has a mechanic that devalues other mechanics, then this is poor game design.

Sure. But that is not the case here. What is the case is that here are different mechanisms with different properties to choose from. And that is good game design. Or have you forgotten that tanks do not need a pump to get their contents out? Or that open reservoirs can be freely accessed? Every one of these solutions has its advantages and drawbacks and none makes the others obsolete or devalues them.

This is a single-player game. If you do not like a mechanic, stop using it. In most cases the game will just continue to work and be winnable. But do not try to force others to stop using that mechanic as well. That is just wrong on many levels. 

That said, I recommend everybody to calm down now. 

[Meltdown]

The infinite liquid storage is posible even without compressing the water itself.
You can just freeze it and store as the debries, melting them back on demand. In case of water, if the map has cold brine/polluted water geysers - this is possible even without any cooling setups, just by directly using the source material to cool the product. So, in the essence, the struggle against infinite storages is just a fight against windmills. It took me longer to write this whole post than to image a loophole around the proposed "fixes".

I would also argue that storage buildings are not rendered "useless" by the infinite storage existence. While they are called "storages", they have more applications than just for storing resources. For example, I use both liquid and gas storages in my oxygen setups, in combination with the infinite liquid storage. They are used to control the flow of resources in this chain through their automation features. The whole setup relies on them, despite the fact that it also uses infinite storages. Swap infinite for anything finite - the application and importance of those buildings won't change in those parts of my setups.

Another example is seting up metal refinery + steam turbine combo. The ability to store infinite amount of liquid does not take away the fact that such setup works best with a several tons of coolant, stored in some kind of buffer. The role of the liquid storage here is invaluable, and is not affected by my ability to build airlock compressors on mussle memory.

Those things are needed, they have thier roles and are great at fulfilling them. It is a matter of looking beyond their names to see this.

[Genry]

6 hours ago, Meltdown said:

The infinite liquid storage is posible even without compressing the water itself.
You can just freeze it and store as the debries, melting them back on demand. In case of water, if the map has cold brine/polluted water geysers - this is possible even without any cooling setups, just by directly using the source material to cool the product. So, in the essence, the struggle against infinite storages is just a fight against windmills. It took me longer to write this whole post than to image a loophole around the proposed "fixes".

I would also argue that storage buildings are not rendered "useless" by the infinite storage existence. While they are called "storages", they have more applications than just for storing resources. For example, I use both liquid and gas storages in my oxygen setups, in combination with the infinite liquid storage. They are used to control the flow of resources in this chain through their automation features. The whole setup relies on them, despite the fact that it also uses infinite storages. Swap infinite for anything finite - the application and importance of those buildings won't change in those parts of my setups.

Another example is seting up metal refinery + steam turbine combo. The ability to store infinite amount of liquid does not take away the fact that such setup works best with a several tons of coolant, stored in some kind of buffer. The role of the liquid storage here is invaluable, and is not affected by my ability to build airlock compressors on mussle memory.

Those things are needed, they have thier roles and are great at fulfilling them. It is a matter of looking beyond their names to see this.

You say that it is possible to fly to the moon and go to the store, so going to the store is normal. Yes, both options are possible for you, but the limiting factor whether you will do it or not is the difficulty of execution.
You cited water as an argument, forgetting that there are also gases, for example natural gas, the condensation of which occurs at -160.
You can store water in ice, and there are no complaints about it, but you need to first freeze the water, then create an energy-consuming or volcano-based system for heating the water, and then supplying it somewhere else.

[Primalflower]

At what point of the game is it necessary to store this much natural gas? I cannot think of a point in which you would ever want it but not have gas reservoirs handy and ready to place easily - sour gas boilers are far in the future and most if any designs i can think of instantly consume it in order to receive the water  refund

[GluttonyMain]

13 hours ago, Charletrom said:

First of all, that’s not what “lie” means, and if you’re encountering the “bug” in your builds that’s a solvable issue. If you post a screenshot of your build I guarantee we can troubleshoot. Mixed gasses that could be the issue.

You are missing the point. I don't want to study forums to learn to avoid the bug, I would prefer the bug to be fixed so I can build my colony without worrying about the bug. Nowadays I know how to avoid it, but it was frustrating the first time i faced it, because it didnt make any sense. It was not "very easy" at all to figure it out if I had to shift through forums to learn about it.

[Prince Mandor]

On 5/23/2024 at 7:40 PM, Genry said:

If a game has a mechanic that devalues other mechanics, then this is poor game design.

 

If you personally consider this game poor designed, just go to Steam and select any other game. Don't try to break perfect game for players who like it.

Also, for your information, It was reservoirs (which you call "tanks") was new addition to game. They break some mechanics, for example they can push liquids without pump by magic force of having pipe connected to input. And they nearly doubled normal storage (you can fit same 6 tons of water in tiles with reservoir containing 5 tons of water), so yes this horrible game-physics violating "tanks" is not perfect and you may petition for their removal from game.

While infinite storage is proper use of game mechanic, works exactly by game-physics and stimulate out-of-the-box thinking. So, they are okay

[pnambic]

5 hours ago, GluttonyMain said:

You are missing the point. I don't want to study forums to learn to avoid the bug, I would prefer the bug to be fixed so I can build my colony without worrying about the bug. Nowadays I know how to avoid it, but it was frustrating the first time i faced it, because it didnt make any sense. It was not "very easy" at all to figure it out if I had to shift through forums to learn about it.

Let me explain to you what this "bug" is. Once you understand it, you can then tell me how you would like to see it fixed.

In ONI, every cell of the map can be occupied by exactly one element at a time. Think of it like the Pauli exclusion principle, just macroscopically. A fundamental rule of ONI physics.

When elements are added to the map, conflicts can arise. Elements are added to the world from the outputs of buildings (including vents), geysers, dupes building tiles, closing airlock doors, shove vole excretions, solids cooking into other solids, partial melting/evaporation, certain cases of condensation and freezing, falling sand/regolith/mud, and liquids falling as droplets hitting a solid. So, a very wide range of situations.

In case of a conflict, if one of the elements can move to a directly adjacent cell (including diagonally) without causing another conflict (i.e. the target tile is a vacuum or occupied by the same element), it has to do so. Conservation of mass has priority. Another fundamental rule of ONI physics. If neither of the elements can do so, equal amounts of mass are deleted from both elements, until one or both are gone. (This is slightly simplified; different states of matter behave slightly differently, but it's the basic principle).

This is the first half of your "bug". The second half is easier:

Liquid pressure can damage walls that are less than three tiles thick. The pressures needed are not extraordinarily high; they can be reached by simply filling a large tank. For some liquids (e.g. petroleum) they're lower than the 1000kg overpressure limit of liquid vents, so just building a closed box of relatively weak tiles (say, insulated sedimentary rock) with a vent inside, and then piping petroleum in, will break the box.

So, your choices seem to be: get rid of conservation of mass, get rid of liquid pressure damage to tiles, institute a rule that says "falling liquids delete gases in their path" (because that sure is intuitive, and loads of fun when moving water pockets in the early game), or... well - you're the one who thinks it can be fixed. Note that OP's "solution" doesn't help; the solidification pressures necessarily must be far above single-tile wall strength, or else water at the bottom of open tanks will solidify and become unusable.

[GluttonyMain]

I dont see why a player should be required to come up with a fix, thats the devs job. But if you insist, fine:

1) Vents, geysers etc would check not only their main square but if the main square would have different element, it would check if there is a square that can accept it (with sufficiently low pressure). If vent with oxygen was submerged in a little bit of water, and all surrounding gas would already be over the pressure, the vent would simply refuse to output (same for geysers etc.-..)

2) When liquid is falling, the game could check first the destination square., If the destination is full and there is no good place to displace the gas, the the liquid that it could "join" would already be above certain pressure, the game could either not allow the water to drop (creating a bubble) or simply swap the tiles of elements, so the gas bubble would travel up. Which of those the game would use would depend on circumstances, for example if the liquid is just small trickle, stopping the flow might feel more natural, but with a lot of liquid on top of the gas, the tiles would just swap, so the bubble would move upwards. Or maybe it would always use one method. I would leave this to the devs.

Now obviously this would take some dev time to implement, but then again, every bugfix does. And I think this would be worth it.

[pnambic]

13 minutes ago, GluttonyMain said:

I dont see why a player should be required to come up with a fix, thats the devs job. But if you insist, fine:

1) Vents, geysers etc would check not only their main square but if the main square would have different element, it would check if there is a square that can accept it (with sufficiently low pressure). If vent with oxygen was submerged in a little bit of water, and all surrounding gas would already be over the pressure, the vent would simply refuse to output (same for geysers etc.-..)

2) When liquid is falling, the game could check first the destination square., If the destination is full and there is no good place to displace the gas, the the liquid that it could "join" would already be above certain pressure, the game could either not allow the water to drop (creating a bubble) or simply swap the tiles of elements, so the gas bubble would travel up. Which of those the game would use would depend on circumstances, for example if the liquid is just small trickle, stopping the flow might feel more natural, but with a lot of liquid on top of the gas, the tiles would just swap, so the bubble would move upwards. Or maybe it would always use one method. I would leave this to the devs.

Now obviously this would take some dev time to implement, but then again, every bugfix does. And I think this would be worth it.

To fix your particular problem (accidental Escher waterfall breaking walls), the pressure limit would need to be below the limit for single-tiled walls, otherwise nothing is gained. You might just as well remove the liquid pressure damage mechanic completely, as there would be no way to trigger it.

Your #2 is already in the game under certain circumstances (liquids can fall as droplets outside the simulation or beads inside of it; the latter swap places with gas as they fall). This is called a bead pump and can be used to quickly move gas around and/or compress it. The latter part is also where your idea fails, because the two overpressures wil be in conflict. "Fixing" that will take abandoning conservation of mass.

Lastly, what about closing doors, building tiles, etc. - things that create solid tiles? Just refuse to close the door/build the tile? Mass deletion?

[Charletrom]

9 hours ago, GluttonyMain said:

You are missing the point. I don't want to study forums to learn to avoid the bug, I would prefer the bug to be fixed so I can build my colony without worrying about the bug. Nowadays I know how to avoid it, but it was frustrating the first time i faced it, because it didnt make any sense. It was not "very easy" at all to figure it out if I had to shift through forums to learn about it.

I think you are missing the point as well. Many people here do not consider this to be a bug, rather a consequence of the fundamental design of the game. Like anything else, the player gets to choose whether they exploit that aspect or not.

[GluttonyMain]

3 hours ago, pnambic said:

To fix your particular problem (accidental Escher waterfall breaking walls), the pressure limit would need to be below the limit for single-tiled walls, otherwise nothing is gained. You might just as well remove the liquid pressure damage mechanic completely, as there would be no way to trigger it.

Your #2 is already in the game under certain circumstances (liquids can fall as droplets outside the simulation or beads inside of it; the latter swap places with gas as they fall). This is called a bead pump and can be used to quickly move gas around and/or compress it. The latter part is also where your idea fails, because the two overpressures wil be in conflict. "Fixing" that will take abandoning conservation of mass.

Lastly, what about closing doors, building tiles, etc. - things that create solid tiles? Just refuse to close the door/build the tile? Mass deletion?

The pressure limit would be near the natural pressure of freestanding liquid obviously.

I dont understand the "overpressures in conflict" can you elaborate? When 2 tiles switch elements, the masses/pressure remain same just 2 positions swap, I dont see the issue.

Closing doors bother me significantly less as its less likely to cause accidental problems, but doors refusing to close under certain (high) pressures seems perfectly thematic.

35 minutes ago, Charletrom said:

I think you are missing the point as well. Many people here do not consider this to be a bug, rather a consequence of the fundamental design of the game. Like anything else, the player gets to choose whether they exploit that aspect or not.

You can only choose to avoid it if you already understand it. Its unintuitive and can happen on accident. And it seems pretty clear to me that it is was not intended by devs to behave like that, so I will continue to consider it a bug. I dont see how someone could see this and think this is an intended mechanic.

[Charletrom]

The one-element-per-tile rule is absolutely intended and is the foundational concept underlying the sim.

[pnambic]

30 minutes ago, GluttonyMain said:

The pressure limit would be near the natural pressure of freestanding liquid obviously.

Sure. So the walls don't break. So why include walls breaking in the first place? (You also did read the thing about petroleum breaking walls without any overpressure trickery or "bugs", right?)

As for the conflict, imagine the following situation: two rooms on top of one another, connected by a 1-tile wide channel. Both full of some gas. In that channel, a liquid vent. Fluid is piped into the vent, dropping down. The gas exchange pulls the gas from the lower chamber upwards. At some point, the upper chamber hits your pressure limit. The vent's in gas, so no overpressure. What happens? (You can do this in-game right now, with a mesh tile underneath the vent to force beads. It will vacuum out the lower chamber and overpressure the upper one infinitely.)

Closing doors in series will infinitely overpressure gases and liquids, though. We're looking for a general, consistent solution to this liquid pressure problem, right? I mean, OP sure was.

One thing I forgot: there are buildings in the game that don't care about pressure and will happily emit into 10 tons of gas per tile - petroleum generators, oil wells, polymer presses... Oil wells can't even flood, so if you put an oil well in a closed room and feed it with water and power, it'll break the walls.

 

30 minutes ago, GluttonyMain said:

You can only choose to avoid it if you already understand it.

This is no different from many other hazards in this game. It's a survival simulation set in a world that had its physics upended after a time-travel accident. If you want a real-world sim, you're playing the wrong game. And even then; in the real world there are also many hazards that can only be avoided if you know about them. Is it really so hard to accept that you built something, in a complicated game, and it broke, and that's not a bug?

[Henlikuoth]

As mentioned before (in other posts), pressure that breaks walls can easily be circumvented using airflow tiles instead of regular tiles. This does not make sense and is, yet again, immersion-breaking. 

Why are pressure mechanics in the game if they are easily fooled and tricked by using airflow tiles? It would be better (and more logical) if airflow tiles could break in the same way as regular tiles. Strictly speaking, airflow tiles should be even more prone to breaking, given they are not massive and have holes and vacant spots inside. 

[pnambic]

11 minutes ago, Charletrom said:

The one-element-per-tile rule is absolutely intended and is the foundational concept underlying the sim.

That's the thing these people seem to completely fail to grasp. It's a sim with a particular ruleset. That ruleset wasn't chosen at random by the developers. The consequences of variations on those rules are absolutely known to them, and the results represent an intended trade-off. It's either that, or the devs are completely incompetent, in which case, why play their game?

[GluttonyMain]

21 minutes ago, pnambic said:

Sure. So the walls don't break. So why include walls breaking in the first place? (You also did read the thing about petroleum breaking walls without any overpressure trickery or "bugs", right?)

Walls would still break if they held too much water, like on the water asteroid. That woudl just nto break due to this bug.

21 minutes ago, pnambic said:

As for the conflict, imagine the following situation: two rooms on top of one another, connected by a 1-tile wide channel. Both full of some gas. In that channel, a liquid vent. Fluid is piped into the vent, dropping down. The gas exchange pulls the gas from the lower chamber upwards. At some point, the upper chamber hits your pressure limit. The vent's in gas, so no overpressure. What happens? (You can do this in-game right now, with a mesh tile underneath the vent to force beads. It will vacuum out the lower chamber and overpressure the upper one infinitely.)

Thats why I said ti would check the destination, and if the destination would be at pressure too high, the vent would overpressure.

21 minutes ago, pnambic said:

Closing doors in series will infinitely overpressure gases and liquids, though. We're looking for a general, consistent solution to this liquid pressure problem, right? I mean, OP sure was.

As I said, the doors refusing to close seem thematically good solution.

21 minutes ago, pnambic said:

One thing I forgot: there are buildings in the game that don't care about pressure and will happily emit into 10 tons of gas per tile - petroleum generators, oil wells, polymer presses... Oil wells can't even flood, so if you put an oil well in a closed room and feed it with water and power, it'll break the walls.

I would have them stop working at high pressures.

21 minutes ago, pnambic said:

51 minutes ago, GluttonyMain said:

You can only choose to avoid it if you already understand it.

This is no different from many other hazards in this game.

Those hazards are not unintuitive, unintended bugs

10 minutes ago, Henlikuoth said:

As mentioned before (in other posts), pressure that breaks walls can easily be circumvented using airflow tiles instead of regular tiles. This does not make sense and is, yet again, immersion-breaking. 

Why are pressure mechanics in the game if they are easily fooled and tricked by using airflow tiles? It would be better (and more logical) if airflow tiles could break in the same way as regular tiles. Strictly speaking, airflow tiles should be even more prone to breaking, given they are not massive and have holes and vacant spots inside. 

I agree, that would make a lot of sense. I can see why metal tiles might be more resistant, but its should not give 100% resistance to pressure.

7 minutes ago, pnambic said:

That's the thing these people seem to completely fail to grasp. It's a sim with a particular ruleset. That ruleset wasn't chosen at random by the developers. The consequences of variations on those rules are absolutely known to them, and the results represent an intended trade-off. It's either that, or the devs are completely incompetent, in which case, why play their game?

But one element per tile rule does not automatically require escher waterfalls to exists. You can have a game with one element per tile rule and not have this mechanic. You seem beleive that not liking escher waterfalls you also reject one element per tile rule, but that is simply not the case.

[pnambic]

2 minutes ago, GluttonyMain said:

Walls would still break if they held too much water, like on the water asteroid. That woudl just nto break due to this bug.

Okay, I give up. Let's call it the GluttonyMain rule: If the sim detects the presence of an Escher waterfall (which is a bit tricky, but should be doable), the game will auto-pause and pop up a dialog warning that this configuration of tiles might lead to overpressure, with "Continue anyway" or "Remove gases" options. That way, we can leave the physics well alone, while still covering this very specific problem.

We might need a few more of these, like for uncovering hot abyssalite in oil, and intruding shove voles, and pips getting their paws on sporechid seeds, and digging out the covering tile of geysers... Also, OP won't be happy, but if we're going the meta-game route, one way would be to add a "game over" condition that triggers if it detects a tile over a certain gas/liquid pressure that is surrounded by some minimum percentage of player-built tiles/airlocks. Then just add pressure limits to the machinery that currently doesn't have them (or warning popups), and I think the game is saved.

Me, I'll switch them off/mod them out again. I don't play ranked anyway.

[pnambic]

54 minutes ago, GluttonyMain said:

Thats why I said ti would check the destination, and if the destination would be at pressure too high, the vent would overpressure.

The "destination" in this case is the upper chamber, in which the falling liquid pumps gas. You want that to stop the liquid output?

 

55 minutes ago, GluttonyMain said:

But one element per tile rule does not automatically require escher waterfalls to exists. You can have a game with one element per tile rule and not have this mechanic. You seem beleive that not liking escher waterfalls you also reject one element per tile rule, but that is simply not the case.

One element per tile and a preference for local conservation of mass does inevitably cause Escher waterfalls, along with a host of other things. That is why I was explaining the mechanics to you, for all the good that seems to have done. This is not a bug, it is a consequence of the rules. It was discovered in 2017. It gets even weirder. In early 2019 (probably also earlier, but the response here is the interesting part), someone reported the hydra overpressure protection as a bug, which was acknowledged, but deemed, and I quote, "due to some of the fundamental rules of the simulation and [...] unlikely to be resolved".

As for the rest, I disagree that airlock doors refusing to close would be a good solution. Build a room underwater that you intend to pump empty later on and you'll quickly see why (provided we go with pressure limits that can't possibly damage single-tile walls). And you can add pressure limits to every building that doesn't have one yet, but the fact that those buildings currently don't have one is part of what makes their use more challenging. You could go "Piped Everything" instead, but then we're playing Factorio, not ONI.

[Henlikuoth]

Even if Escher waterfalls are (allegedly) inevitable, I wouldn't mind it if they couldn't be used to store endless amounts of liquid.

Similarly, I wouldn't care about the partially submerged electrolyzer if it couldn't be used to build up limitless amounts of gas.

The easiest solution might be to limit the amount of gas/liquid per tile so that it does not escalate to absurd heights, like 100k tons per tile, etc.

The amount would need to be determined by Klei, but I would be okay with it if the game just deleted everything that goes beyond the current standard amount (like 1000 kg for fluids). Optionally, the amount per tile in these rather odd setups could intentionally be made somewhat higher, maybe double the standard amount. Perhaps then everyone would be happy.  

Consequently, people could still use the Escher waterfall and the electrolyzer setup mentioned above, but absurd amounts of gas/liquid would be prevented from occurring. 

[mathmanican]

2 hours ago, pnambic said:

The consequences of variations on those rules are absolutely known to them, and the results represent an intended trade-off.

Agreed. 

When things first came out, I don't think the devs fully understood the consequences. For me, that was the joy of ONI - discovering how this new ruleset created a completely different world. It was exciting to discover new things and see how far from our reality ONI is. Sharing those discoveries on the forums added to the enjoyment immensely (for me ONI is a community game - far from single player - about discovering new physics). Most of my time spent in the game was trying to take things to the extreme, showcasing how ridiculous some things can be, and bantering with other forum goers to really crank out ridiculous contraptions. A large part of the point was to help the developers see the consequences so they could decide on tradeoffs. I think they've done an amazing job. Are there things I still wish would be changed? Of course. 

Any change to the sim will result in new tradeoffs, which someone will happily explore, exploit, and share. ONI is a fun imaginary place with a completely different ruleset, ripe for discovery and mindblowing illogical creations. Once I realized this (took a few hundred hours), the game took on a whole new meaning and became way better than just a colony sim. That's my take. 

[pnambic]

2 hours ago, mathmanican said:

ONI is a fun imaginary place with a completely different ruleset, ripe for discovery and mindblowing illogical creations.

Precisely! This is what kept me around for 7 years now, and that is the experience I wish upon every player.

Sadly, that seems to be a hard thing to communicate. I'm far more active on the ONI subreddit than I am here, mostly fielding newbie questions and trying to instill that mindset on the side, with moderate success. I'll try linking your comment the next time round.

 

(btw., I probably learned more about this game from reading your and Saturnus' and some other people's posts back in the early access days than I did by playing it. Thanks for that!)

[GluttonyMain]

14 hours ago, pnambic said:

Okay, I give up. Let's call it the GluttonyMain rule: If the sim detects the presence of an Escher waterfall (which is a bit tricky, but should be doable), the game will auto-pause and pop up a dialog warning that this configuration of tiles might lead to overpressure, with "Continue anyway" or "Remove gases" options. That way, we can leave the physics well alone, while still covering this very specific problem.

Thast an imrpovement, but seems really cumbersome and cofusing for new palyers. Id rather they fix the bug.

14 hours ago, pnambic said:

We might need a few more of these, like for uncovering hot abyssalite in oil, and intruding shove voles, and pips getting their paws on sporechid seeds, and digging out the covering tile of geysers

Thats a compeltely different thing, stop conflating intended mechanics with bugs.

13 hours ago, pnambic said:

14 hours ago, GluttonyMain said:

Thats why I said ti would check the destination, and if the destination would be at pressure too high, the vent would overpressure.

The "destination" in this case is the upper chamber, in which the falling liquid pumps gas. You want that to stop the liquid output?

If the situation would result in nonsensical overpressure than yes, I want to stop the liquid output.

13 hours ago, pnambic said:

One element per tile and a preference for local conservation of mass does inevitably cause Escher waterfalls, along with a host of other things. That is why I was explaining the mechanics to you, for all the good that seems to have done. This is not a bug, it is a consequence of the rules. It was discovered in 2017. It gets even weirder. In early 2019 (probably also earlier, but the response here is the interesting part), someone reported the hydra overpressure protection as a bug, which was acknowledged, but deemed, and I quote, "due to some of the fundamental rules of the simulation and [...] unlikely to be resolved".

So you agree its a bug. Nice. Unliekly to be resolved != impossibel to resolve. It just means devs dont want to spend the time. I can respect that. I would prefer the bug fixed, but they want to use the dev time to add a cool new feature thats also good.

13 hours ago, pnambic said:

And you can add pressure limits to every building that doesn't have one yet, but the fact that those buildings currently don't have one is part of what makes their use more challenging

How is that more challenging? Only thing i can think of is algae terrarium causing popped eardrums, but Im perfectly fine with the pressure limit being above the eardrums limit.