CO2 for Slicksters

[alficles]

I've seen lots and lots of people suggest using slicksters exclusively for oil production. In fact, it seems to be "well known" that they are a much better source than oil wells. This is great, but where do you get the CO2 to supply them?  I've got a nice slickster setup that I feed with my excess CO2, including the CO2 generated by the refining and electrical generation process, but it still doesn't seem to make very much. As near as I can tell, they put out gram-for-gram Crude for CO2. It takes a rather lot of CO2 to make 10kg of crude. :/

Dupes make only 1.2kg of CO2/day, A coal generator will turn 50kg of coal into 1kg of CO2 (plus, of course, power). Hatches can produce up to 1kg/s of coal, in ideal circumstances. So as near as I can tell, the fastest way to produce CO2 is hatches to generators (fed as necessary with pufts or whatever is on hand). That's 12kg of crude per hatch per cycle. On my map, I've got 3 hatches. That's way, way not enough. I can use gas geysers for a bit more, and collect from anywhere I can, but it's still not really a lot of CO2.

So, how do you generate CO2 for slicksters, if you're relying on them for oil production?

[Risu]

Most CO2 is gonna come from natural gas generators since everyone seems to love boringly easy power production.
 

[alficles]

Hrm. A geyser supports about 2 generators, which will put out about .16kg/s. So, I'll have enough for a refinery run every ~62s. That isn't too bad, especially if you combine it with the sources above. That's probably reasonable, though I don't know that it means you don't need oil wells or other power sources.

And, re: your boring power sources. You've probably been playing for a while. NG Generators are anything but boring the first few times you set them up. They drip polluted water that has to be handled, they emit CO2 that has to be dealt with, and if you're using a geyser, you'll need to properly encase it without causing heat problems. NG Generators themselves eventually overheat if you aren't careful. And worse, a hot generator will help heat your base quite a bit. These problems are all 100% solveable. But I would hesitate to find them "boringly easy".

[Risu]

29 minutes ago, alficles said:

And, re: your boring power sources. You've probably been playing for a while. NG Generators are anything but boring the first few times you set them up. They drip polluted water that has to be handled, they emit CO2 that has to be dealt with, and if you're using a geyser, you'll need to properly encase it without causing heat problems. NG Generators themselves eventually overheat if you aren't careful. And worse, a hot generator will help heat your base quite a bit. These problems are all 100% solveable. But I would hesitate to find them "boringly easy".

The geysers are fine. It's the 30 fertilizer makers powering another 10 generators that is the problem.
 

[bountygiver]

the real cost of the fertilizer makers is the FPS of the game.

[Grimgaw]

6 hours ago, Risu said:

The geysers are fine. It's the 30 fertilizer makers powering another 10 generators that is the problem.

Is that a problem in your game? There's neat solution: don't use them.

It's not a problem in game I'm playing, but I have no idea why my game bothers you so much seeing as you can't partake in it.

[Exa]

2 hours ago, Grimgaw said:

Is that a problem in your game? There's neat solution: don't use them.

It's not a problem in game I'm playing, but I have no idea why my game bothers you so much seeing as you can't partake in it.

Ok I hear this often and have to say something, when a gameplay element is unbalanced, it's stupid to say "just don't use it". Game designer are supposed to design what is usable or not, what you're able to do or not. The player is not supposed to forbid himself to not use something not funny. if it's not funny and unbalanced, it has to be balanced or removed from the game, period.

[PhailRaptor]

3 minutes ago, Exa said:

Ok I hear this often and have to say something, when a gameplay element is unbalanced, it's stupid to say "just don't use it". Game designer are supposed to design what is usable or not, what you're able to do or not. The player is not supposed to forbid himself to not use something not funny. if it's not funny and unbalanced, it has to be balanced or removed from the game, period.

If the game was in a state where it was close to official release, I'd agree with that sentiment.  But the fact of the matter is the game is in Early Access, with significant sections of the game still in heavy development (food, for example).  To be honest, without an alternative source of "easy" power, it's conceivable that the devs are purposely leaving the NatGas/Fert loop intact in order to make processes deeper in the tech tree more accessible, enabling more users to experiment with machines and systems that they otherwise might not, at a frequency that they would not without them.

 

Balance is important.  But with development still underway, it's on the backburner.  As it should be.

[Exa]

8 minutes ago, PhailRaptor said:

If the game was in a state where it was close to official release, I'd agree with that sentiment.  But the fact of the matter is the game is in Early Access, with significant sections of the game still in heavy development (food, for example).  To be honest, without an alternative source of "easy" power, it's conceivable that the devs are purposely leaving the NatGas/Fert loop intact in order to make processes deeper in the tech tree more accessible, enabling more users to experiment with machines and systems that they otherwise might not, at a frequency that they would not without them.

 

Balance is important.  But with development still underway, it's on the backburner.  As it should be.

that makes sense

[Grimgaw]

Personally I don't use massive fertilizer maker 'farm' due to lack of pH2O. That of course could be balanced with Carbon Skimmer, but as per thread title, I'd rather feed my slicksters. 

I really don't see balance issue here with 20g/s of Nat gas from Fert Synthetizer. I just really, REALLY wish the fertilizer had some more use.

P.S.Are we going to be upset about 8.33g/s of steam from polymer press next?

[KittenIsAGeek]

A big part of this game is recycleability.  If you're short on carbon dioxide and/or polluted water, build a petroleum power plant.  The carbon dioxide and polluted water outputs of natural gas generators is nothing by comparison. 

As for Grimgaw's "I wish there was a use for fertilizer..."  Personally I stick my hatches on a couple rows of my fertilizer farms and let them turn it into coal for my backup generators.

 

[Lifegrow]

17 hours ago, alficles said:

I've seen lots and lots of people suggest using slicksters exclusively for oil production. In fact, it seems to be "well known" that they are a much better source than oil wells. This is great, but where do you get the CO2 to supply them?  I've got a nice slickster setup that I feed with my excess CO2, including the CO2 generated by the refining and electrical generation process, but it still doesn't seem to make very much. As near as I can tell, they put out gram-for-gram Crude for CO2. It takes a rather lot of CO2 to make 10kg of crude. :/

Dupes make only 1.2kg of CO2/day, A coal generator will turn 50kg of coal into 1kg of CO2 (plus, of course, power). Hatches can produce up to 1kg/s of coal, in ideal circumstances. So as near as I can tell, the fastest way to produce CO2 is hatches to generators (fed as necessary with pufts or whatever is on hand). That's 12kg of crude per hatch per cycle. On my map, I've got 3 hatches. That's way, way not enough. I can use gas geysers for a bit more, and collect from anywhere I can, but it's still not really a lot of CO2.

So, how do you generate CO2 for slicksters, if you're relying on them for oil production?

Main things I tend to try are:

A)  Build a trap beneath your base early game to allow your CO2 to either build up for later, of if you're fortunate enough to find a "slickster pond" on your first vertical dig, open them up and let them consume your CO2 immediately

B) Avoid algae terrariums like the plague, they're a useless hog of water in my opinion. We have simple means of creating oxygen and even simpler ways to dispose of CO2.

C) Start using coal gens again - genuinely. We have automation and a genuine use for CO2 now, so you'd be a fool not to

D) When you get to later stages of the game, start thinking about re-oxygenating the asteroid, and using pumps in other natural sinks/low points to reclaim those lost gasses. Send all this back to a basic mechanical filter setup (or just use gas filters if power is of no concern) and route it all to the respective homes

This may be a bit off-topic, but i've just done a video showing a use for your newly acquired Oil, so have a nosey if you're interested : 

Good luck and have fun  

[mickaux]

On 19.11.2017 at 1:44 AM, alficles said:

As near as I can tell, they put out gram-for-gram Crude for CO2. It takes a rather lot of CO2 to make 10kg of crude. :/

The exchange ratio is exactly 1:1 and you're right, that converting CO2 into crude oil doesn't make sense, if you're thinking about refining it in a conventional way. However, there are several settings based on magma or liquid tepidizer that can heat oil and turn it into petroleum and then into natural gas - also with ratio 1:1. So actually you can convert pretty much useless CO2 into natural gas to produce energy... and CO2. For that use all you need is just a few slicksters.

Also, no one limits you to use one source of oil only. Unless you're spending your water for berries, sleet wheet or microbe musher, it's actually quite hard to run out of water with at least one steam geyser. I'm only using oil for two purposes only: to make plastic and to make crazy amounts of natural gas, which is way to much considering my regular energy needs. Having a setting that allows you to produce a bit less, but at a very regular ratio and without any actual cost, is imo more satisfying.