Sign in to follow this  
Cheerio

[Game Update] - 234607

Recommended Posts

trukogre    235
2 hours ago, Risu said:

1.8 kg/s of water and 907.2W to generate 2000W.
100 kg of water and 98400W to make a plastic tile.

Guess it's reasonable, but it feels like it swung a bit too far in the other direction.
 

It's fair by comparison to the other generators, the problem is the old generators already gave enough power for everything we needed.  If the next update provides more power consumers, then it will all work out. I was never happy with the magical nature of fertilizer maker power, so moving to oil wells instead of that is a positive move in my book at least.  I am curious to see what additional power consumers are in the pipeline, especially if the steam generator is coming for yet more power generation.

Edited by trukogre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Botaxalim    95

ok got it, i hope im not wrong, its based on how many carbon skimmer is needed, just randomly using photoshop
 

i know this just stupid math, since we cant calculate the liquid or gas travel in second, depend on how long pipe
any comment, correct me if im wrong, im just dumb for math

 

 

 

detail calculation.jpg

Edited by Botaxalim
wrong pic. correcting mistake, new fert maker for natgas geyser
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
2 minutes ago, Whispershade said:

@Risu can chime in, but apparently the number has been closer to 250g/s since Outbreak.

I believe it was enough for 2,66 gas generators and you had to build one additional FM to get all 3 gas generators running constantly. But correct me if I am wrong.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Botaxalim    95
1 minute ago, Whispershade said:

@Risu can chime in, but apparently the number has been closer to 250g/s since Outbreak.

yeah i dont know exact number for natgas geyser, i usually using 2, if i using 3 generator, the gas from geyser will run out
so if 160+add 1 fetilizer so natgas geyser can run 3 generator

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Risu    500
7 minutes ago, Whispershade said:

@Risu can chime in, but apparently the number has been closer to 250g/s since Outbreak.

45 kg in 280 second intervals, so ~160g/s was right.
 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Botaxalim    95
8 minutes ago, Risu said:

45 kg in 280 second intervals, so ~160g/s was right.

edited the pic with update. so run down all power generation in the game, i think we need more advance power plant, all we have now its too based on resource. the best power net now is natgas geyser since unlimited resource, maybe next is steam generator since we already have plastic/polymer? or nuclear power plant with radiation act like germs

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whispershade    162
1 hour ago, Risu said:

45 kg in 280 second intervals, so ~160g/s was right.
 

Yeah, I found the thread this was discussed and I think I mixed up the jump from 1.66 natgas gens to 2.66 with the natgas values of 100g/s to 160g/s. I apologize for adding confusion.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest   
Guest
10 hours ago, Botaxalim said:

edited the pic with update. so run down all power generation in the game, i think we need more advance power plant, all we have now its too based on resource. the best power net now is natgas geyser since unlimited resource, maybe next is steam generator since we already have plastic/polymer? or nuclear power plant with radiation act like germs

I assume you run all 3 systems in isolation, so ignoring synergies which will lead to dramatic cuts in power and resource usage. However, it is still not quite accurate. Your petroleum generator only required 3000g/s of petroleum, which is less then the full 5000g/s your oil refinery produces at max capacity. the petgen, on its own, will bottle neck petroleum production. The oil refinery will work at 60% capacity when no other petroleum consumer is connected. So this means instead of your oil refinery consuming 10kg/s of oil and producing 5kg/s of petroleum, it will be 6kg/s of oil input and 3kg/s petroleum output. This in turn means you do not need 3 oil wells, but only 2. And those are bottlenecked themselves, as 2 oil wells generate 6,666kg/s of oil, and there's only 6kg/s consumed. This means your oil wells will run 90% of the max capacity.

And all of this has knock on effects: 

-The oil refinery will have everything capped at 60%. That also means NG, which is not 60g/s but 34 g/s. That means the NGG only produces 480W. It also means you are going to cap your gas pump at 34/500= 6.8% . In a perfect world that means it will only consume 16.32W on average.

-You will only produce 49.5g/s CO2, meaning you will only have to scrub 49.5/300=16.5% of the carbon skimmer capacity. If I am correct, of the carbon skimmer does not have CO2 to scrub, it will not consume power and it will not consume water. Meaning this will lead to an idealistic 0.165*120W=19.8W and 165g/s water. You also will only need 1 carbon skimmer in that situation. You do not need to scrub the CO2 produced by the petgen.

-Your oil pump will only run at 60% because we only need 6kg/s oil. That's 144W.

-Your water pump will only need to pump 1.8kg/s for the oil wells, because the oil wells only run on 90% of their capacity so only demand 1.8kg/s water. The power usage of the pump will be 1.8/10*240=43.2W. The 2 oil wells together will use 90%*480W=432W

-Your polluted water pump will only need to pump 1250g/s +40.5g/s of the NGG (67.5*0.6). So that's 1290.5g/s, which is 12.905% of the capacity, so that's on average 30.972W. I don't count in polluted water produced by the carbon skimmer, because that water does not need to be pumped.

Also, a carbon skimmer at 100% capacity will only use 120W; not 240W.

Edited by Guest

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Botaxalim    95

Just round up everything in per second, i know this is not perfect scenario, where there bottleneck and standby period, yeah because not everything run at 100% on same time. Well based on their stats , i think i got the big pictures. Chill  :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
goboking    2277
19 hours ago, trukogre said:

When you're looking for "reasonable middle ground", the problem is that there are many middle grounds between many extremes.  You're saying we should look for middle ground between the old, very bad numbers, and these new, very different numbers.  But if you look at the new numbers, in terms of power requirements/material requirements to run the generator, versus power produced, and compare them to coal/hydrogen/natural gas generators, you'll find that the new numbers are already 'the middle ground', in that the pet. generator is the most powerful generator, but has the worst ratio of inputs to outputs.  Let's have an analogy.  You're trying to get a job, the industry standard is around 50,000 dollars per year in your field.  You're trying to negotiate your starting salary.  You suggest 60,000 a year, aiming a bit high.  Their initial offer is to pay you 6 dollars per year.  They then come back with well, our offer was 320 hours per dollar, you suggested 25 dollars an hour, why don't we just compromise on a reasonable middle ground of a straight 1 to 1 ratio, 1 dollar per hour.Sometimes the reasonable middle ground isn't actually reasonable, or middle. 

Klei isn't negotiating with us to get a number that favors their interests at our expense, they're trying to balance their game.  They set those original numbers because that's approximately what they felt was balanced, or so I believe.  These new numbers aren't even in the firsts' neighborhood.  Unless the first numbers were pulled out of a hat, then they're a long way from what they originally envisioned as approximately balanced.

Now obviously they're going to be off on a lot of their original estimations for these kinds numbers...but to be that far off?  I'd like to think they're better grasp for balance than that.  That's why I can't help but feel that they're overcompensating, much as they did after the Outbreak Upgrade went live.

Of course it's entirely possible that they did indeed just throw numbers at the wall and that I don't know what I'm talking about, so I digress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
trukogre    235
3 hours ago, goboking said:

 so I believe

 I'd like to think

why I can't help but feel

Of course it's entirely possible that they did indeed just throw numbers at the wall 

When it comes to balancing generators,  I'm a lot more interested in comparing generators to other generators, then in continuing your chain of argument, whose next step would involve me seeing how I feel about how you feel about how Klei feels about generators, and then seeing how you feel about that.  Feelings are important, but I have a hard time getting excited about feelings about numbers, which is the situation here.  I like doing math with numbers, and saving feelings for things that are not made of numbers. Also feelings are important between two people, but they chain poorly, unlike math, which chains perfectly.  A = B , and B = C, and C = D , so therefore A = D, works in math, not so much in feelings. anyways.

 have you seen the post where Risu posted all the different generators and what they take vs what they produce?

Since I made such a big deal about how we should do this with math and not feelings, I suppose I have to write down the math now.  Let's look at a simpler version here, which I'm typing from off the top of my head so please excuse/correct any mistakes:

Manual Generator 400 w     cost    1 duplicant effort         waste: nothing

Coal generator    600 w        cost     ~2 trapped hatches    waste:  20 g/s CO2 waste  (I use hatches as the cost here because this is the only renewable way to run a coal generator.  I'm trying to compare everything here to the scenario of running an NGG straight from a geyser, and hatches are the closet we can get with a CG)

Hydrogen generator  800 w  cost: 100 g/s hydrogen, which expressed in watts is ~140 watts   waste: none  (in this model i'm ascribing the watts cost of the electrolyzer to the hydrogen, and the water cost to the oxygen, which is one possible choice out of many)

Nat gas generator  :  800 w  cost: 60 g/s nat gas, which in wattage, pumped from a nat gas geyser, is something like 15 watts.  waste 82.5 g/s co2, 67.5 g/s pwater.

Pet generator (from oil well)  2000 w  cost: 3 kg/s petroleum, which in wattage, pumped from an oil well, is something like 900 watts., and some amount of water, something like 1800g/s?.  waste:  1250 g/s pwater, 500g/s co2  (I think this 900 watts, it should be noted, generates some nat gas as a byproduct as well)

Let's leave Klei out of this for now, unless they chime in :)  Just looking at this chart, we see that per watt, the petroleum generator takes by far the most input wattage per output wattage, is the only one that consumes clean water when producing it as directly as possible from natural geyser/well formation, and generates by far the most waste per wattage.  Leaving Klei out of it, do you have a number based argument, considering the three facts I just listed, that Oil wells and or petroleum generators should be nerfed?

The one numerical 'counterargument' if you can call it that, I've seen so far, saying that petroleum generators were overpowered, is someone who built a power plant with 8 NGGs and 1 petroleum plant, powering the NGGs with byproducts and a bunch of FMs running off the waste water.  If your only argument that petroleum plants are too good relative to the old system off NGGS and FMs, is to build a power plant that is mostly made up of NGGs and FMs and say it's an improvement...think about it. (Hint: that suggests that the thing which needs to be nerfed is the nat gas byproducts from all sources of nat gas except nat gas geysers, not petroleum gens)

 

One more argument to show that the real problem here is that NGGs and FMs are too powerful, which makes the 'waste' from the pet. generator actually a benefit:  consider if we ever figure out a way to heat crude oil to 600 Celsius(which would convert it to nat gas), with some new very hot machine.  The 6 kg/s of crude oil it takes to run 1 pet generator, would in that instance be able to instead run ONE HUNDRED NGG's, producing instead of 2000 W, a whopping 80,000 watts! This clearly doesn't make sense, methane is not 40x as energetic as crude oil, and as long as the current OPness of nat gas is preserved, Klei can't let us ever get things that hot controllably  or sustainably.

 

Edited by trukogre

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this