Tenured Scientists REQUIRED for geysers?????

[Denisetwin]

Just now, BlueLance said:

Turn off steam auto updates, enable it once you are happy? 

erm, hate to say but I have no idea how to do that.

[Risu]

6 cycles of constant studying just to see how many more cycles it'd take until it erupts seems a bit excessive.
 

[BlueLance]

16 minutes ago, Risu said:

6 cycles of constant studying just to see how many more cycles it'd take until it erupts seems a bit excessive.
 

Geez is that 6 full cycles or just 6 day (cycles) I agree that is a bit much, especially if its busy spewing lava on you....

"Huh, it's not so bad it's only five more days, I don't see why no one wanted to do this. What's that noise? OH SWEET MUSH BARS IT BURNS" - Stinky

[Risu]

7 minutes ago, BlueLance said:

Geez is that 6 full cycles or just 6 day (cycles) I agree that is a bit much, especially if its busy spewing lava on you....

The work time is set to 3600 seconds on that chore. Paused if a dupe has to run off somewhere so saying it'd take 6 cycles is optimistic.
 

[BlueLance]

1 minute ago, Risu said:

The work time is set to 3600 seconds on that chore. Paused if a dupe has to run off somewhere so saying it'd take 6 cycles is optimistic.
 

Yeah that is why i was asking, if it is far away you will be looking at well past that unless you build a FOB

[Neotuck]

1 minute ago, BlueLance said:

Yeah that is why i was asking, if it is far away you will be looking at well past that unless you build a FOB

look at my starting post pictures, started at cycle 1 and ended at cycle 5.  Granted I used debug mode and I'm sure if my dupes got tenured normally their learning stat would be much higher and would have analyzed the geysers faster 

[BlueLance]

9 minutes ago, Neotuck said:

look at my starting post pictures, started at cycle 1 and ended at cycle 5.  Granted I used debug mode and I'm sure if my dupes got tenured normally their learning stat would be much higher and would have analyzed the geysers faster 

It can still take longer realistically though, depends on distance, learning stat etc. but you are right, it could also be less if you are lucky and its right next to you, or unlucky depending on the geyser

[Technoincubus]

19 hours ago, Soulwind said:

Am I reading that right?  The geyser only erupts for 20 cycles out of every 100 cycles?

Yeah, they are useless now.

[SamLogan]

16 hours ago, Neotuck said:

That's temp art

It's not about the art, it's about a new feature get instant spoil.

[Luminite2]

People need to stop losing their minds every time something gets changed... They are not "useless" now, the balance is just different. Each geyser is less reliable, but there are more of them and they are varied. You can definitely use them, you just have to use them differently. The fact that old ways of doing things become ineffective with new updates is NOT an indication that the changes are bad; just that they're changes.

[Amara313]

34 minutes ago, Luminite2 said:

People need to stop losing their minds every time something gets changed... They are not "useless" now, the balance is just different. Each geyser is less reliable, but there are more of them and they are varied. You can definitely use them, you just have to use them differently. The fact that old ways of doing things become ineffective with new updates is NOT an indication that the changes are bad; just that they're changes.

I agree with you.  Every time I tell someone about this game, the first thing I tell them is about the updates.  Every six weeks, we throw out the old strategy and start over.  That's what keeps the game fresh and exciting for me.   I LOVE the new critters and I can't wait to find out how to make the best use of the geysers.  We have renewable sources for stuff that used to not be renewable.  How cool is that?  It's different, yes, but that's the fun of it all.  I even start redesigning my base to see if I could find a more efficient setup.  I stopped with the straight, long corridors and started to build more naturally.  I'm starting to think about how to make outposts.  Instead of restarting every couple of hundred cycles, I can see how this could help the average player start to get up into the thousands now.  

My advice to people - remember that change is not bad.  It's just different.  Complain about it you want to, but maybe think about not declaring everything to be useless because it's now how it was.  How many times have we already been through this?  It's starting to feel like a more complete game.  Embrace the change  

[BlueLance]

1 hour ago, Denisetwin said:

erm, hate to say but I have no idea how to do that.

On Steam right click the game and hit properties, in one of the options there is a drop down which lets you change it

[Soulwind]

Well if I get 20 cycles on and 160 cycles off with a minimum output geyser, that's as close to useless as the algae terrarium is.  It's actually more of an obstacle than a boon.  I still have tti deal with the geyser but will probably never get any real benefit from it. 

That being said,  I fully expect some balance tweaking of the geysers is yet to come. 

[Neotuck]

2 hours ago, SamLogan said:

It's not about the art, it's about a new feature get instant spoil.

welcome to the forums 

[goboking]

7 hours ago, Risu said:

6 cycles of constant studying just to see how many more cycles it'd take until it erupts seems a bit excessive.
 

This is especially true when you consider that a tenured scientist comes with higher food quality and decor expectations.

 

6 hours ago, Luminite2 said:

People need to stop losing their minds every time something gets changed... They are not "useless" now, the balance is just different. Each geyser is less reliable, but there are more of them and they are varied. You can definitely use them, you just have to use them differently. The fact that old ways of doing things become ineffective with new updates is NOT an indication that the changes are bad; just that they're changes.

You're conflating legitimate criticism and honest feedback with complaints stemming from an unwillingness to adapt to changes made to a game still in development.  That's not fair.

[Luminite2]

3 hours ago, goboking said:

You're conflating legitimate criticism and honest feedback with complaints stemming from an unwillingness to adapt to changes made to a game still in development.  That's not fair.

I agree with you that conflating those two things would be unfair. I really hope I'm not doing that. 

In my subjective opinion, "Yeah, they are useless now" didn't seem like it was coming from a place of willingness to adapt. Maybe I'm wrong.

As a separate issue, maybe the geysers really are unbalanced and need a buff; I just feel like we'll need some serious thought and time spent in a survival game to actually draw that conclusion and be able to deliver it as legitimate criticism.

[PhailRaptor]

6 hours ago, Luminite2 said:

As a separate issue, maybe the geysers really are unbalanced and need a buff; I just feel like we'll need some serious thought and time spent in a survival game to actually draw that conclusion and be able to deliver it as legitimate criticism.

I think we can flat out say that the dormancy periods of 120 cycles are way, way too long.  The "randomized" parameters of Geyser activity need to be reworked pretty substantially.

[Ambaire]

On 3/9/2018 at 10:35 AM, BlueLance said:

On Steam right click the game and hit properties, in one of the options there is a drop down which lets you change it

Ah, you mean the option that says "Only update this game when I launch it"? That doesn't prevent the update.. it only delays it until next launch. It was once the other way but Steam changed it... i guess since some idiots were complaining that stuff wasn't getting fixed in their games and they never checked for updates. Stupid.

[Kabrute]

4 minutes ago, Ambaire said:

Ah, you mean the option that says "Only update this game when I launch it"? That doesn't prevent the update.. it only delays it until next launch. It was once the other way but Steam changed it... i guess since some idiots were complaining that stuff wasn't getting fixed in their games and they never checked for updates. Stupid.

have to play offline to bypass updating.

[TehPlayer14]

2 hours ago, Ambaire said:

Ah, you mean the option that says "Only update this game when I launch it"? That doesn't prevent the update.. it only delays it until next launch. It was once the other way but Steam changed it... i guess since some idiots were complaining that stuff wasn't getting fixed in their games and they never checked for updates. Stupid.

I think you can manually move the whole game to folder outside steam library the game probably won't update

[rodr]

On 3/9/2018 at 7:37 AM, Technoincubus said:

Yeah, they are useless now.

Not giving up that narrative eh?  They're not useless they're just different.  I personally find these changes way more engaging than the OU update, and welcome them.  There are enough subsystems in the game to more than make up for the unlimited nature of the previous update.  Yes, they probably will tweak settings on the geysers, but I'd still say blanket statements about uselessness are getting as tiring as arguments about fallacy. 

Quote

Oh my I can't use a template base design on every single map, that just destroys my replay potential.

Lots of words are being said about the changes, but I personally tend to read into such statements the above quote.  The geysers before were about as required as voids imo.  Take my thoughts with a grain of salt I know people have real vested interests in spamming fert makers and nat gas geysers, but not this guy.

[rodr]

Just finished a quick analyze job on my current colony.  I'm at cycle 163 and just recently, within the past 10 cycles or so tapped into the geyser to help power my purification plant as I've not found a steam geyser yet.

NatGas Generator  = -60g/s
NatGeyser = 139.4g/s
Duty per Cycle (cycle here is 448s where generator runs 30s then off 30s) ~
NatGen = 13.44 KG/cycle
NatGeyser = 39.729 KG/Cycle 
Dormancy Cycle = 60.3 cycles out of 118.8 cycles

Production over dormancy cycle (approximated bc i'm not that interested)

NatGen = Consumes 1596.672 KG
Geyser spits out = 2395.6587 KG

Total # of generators per this geyser with Dormant time of 58cycles every 118.8 == 1.5.  I currently run two natgens, and will obviously run out of gas within the next 118 cycles, but i have time to get another power source to ensure diversification.

I'm not complaining because that's still pretty good, and capable of being offset by other power generation methods.  I went from wheels -> hydrogen (unreliably bc of a few new bugs) into natgen offset by coal and hydrogen into a more reliable power supply.  My current base has ac system and water purification and water cooling.  Normal stations combined with 1 tepidizer and 2 aquatuners, and quite a few pumps.  I'm not really that concerned with the downtime.  Worst case scenario I should probably actually put a gas valve limiting to 120g/s since I have 2 natgens, but that's not needed at this point as I'll barely run out of natgas after 118 more cycles, which hopefully I'll have another type of power generation in place, probably steam as I found a volcano I could leverage.

Instead of saying its useless bc of what you're reading, do some math and figure out the duty per cycle, and the duty per dormancy period -- then let me know how useless things are.  Again, this is rough math and not 100% exact, but its a good estimation.  Folks should stop looking at the big numbers and start looking at how it all relates together. 

I have another gas geyser somewhere and if it has the same dormancy duty cycle, or even comparably, i'll be able to have easily enough natgens to survive to other power sources like oil or steam get up and running.

 

 

[Technoincubus]

5 hours ago, rodr said:

Lots of words are being said about the changes, but I personally tend to read into such statements the above quote.  The geysers before were about as required as voids imo.  Take my thoughts with a grain of salt I know people have real vested interests in spamming fert makers and nat gas geysers, but not this guy.

Actually, this update forces me to rely upon template base much much more than before, as only this will ensure conoly survival. If before I used recycling to win some time for geyser location, now I am using this solutions as a permanent options, with massing puft-morb farms, and vastly expanded fert.plants. In all my post-patch plays I never deviatedfrom this - now all my colonies are a template bases, with most of the time being used for constucting vast recycling installations and luring\farming morbs and pufts.

[rodr]

2 hours ago, Technoincubus said:

Actually, this update forces me to rely upon template base much much more than before, as only this will ensure conoly survival.

We must be playing different games as I'm not using your template (or any template to be frank) and surviving just fine.

I've observed a geyser that is active for 285s out of 448s which is that geyser's activity cycle.  i consider that geyser cycle separate from the duplicant cycle of 600s much like the earth has a cycle around the sun and the moon a separate cycle around the earth.  The geyser in question is active for 60.3 cycles out of 118.8 cycles giving a downtime of 58.5 cycles (cycles in this case are duplicant cycles of 600s it seems).  My generators currently operate for 30s, and then stop for ~ 30s.  That's a ~50% active duty percentage for both, meaning 50% of the overall circle of activity will be spewing out natgas which can power non-stop 1.5 natural gas generators (in their current duty cycle) over the course of that 118.8 cycles.  Add in a fertilizer maker, and we probably can easily make up the other .5 duty cycle of natgas required for 2, if not more.  What percentage of active duty would you like to see, and how many generators do you think a single geyser should be able to power?

Why are you constructing mass recycling facilities and luring puffts and morbs?  I'm guessing you're making natgas, which leads back to my original point.  What type of duty cycle and throughput would you expect geysers to have? How many power plants do you think a single geyser should power -- 1.5, 3, 50?  Why not adapt into a higher tier power supply long-term?  My recycling center is pretty much the same size as the o2 generation unit that @Saturnus posted although its mainly a stop-gap until I get to higher tier power.  Its easy to talk about the things we don't like, and sometimes harder to explain why we don't like them.  Can you drop a screen shot or two of your base (and a crappy geyser) so I can get a better understanding of what I'm not doing right?  I'm confused as to what exactly the beef you have is with the geysers aside from the fact there's a duty cycle worked in, and so perhaps a picture might help.

I found the scientist requirement very helpful in figuring out the production over the geyser cycle which helped me plan my power distribution.  I wasn't bothered too much, but you better believe I'll be keeping that scientist safe until I uncover the geysers I need.  If he dies before I analyze them all, depending on research level at the time of death, I probably won't be able to analyze any more.  This to me makes him a valuable resource where before it was just the job I rushed through.  I haven't decided if I like that or not, but it is the first duplicant I've actually actually considered safety while assigning work activities.  He's probably my most valuable dupe at this point as best I can tell.  Everyone else is replaceable with enough time given to train, but research training is a finite resource with a bit of value imo.

[PhailRaptor]

1 hour ago, rodr said:

Can you drop a screen shot or two of your base (and a crappy geyser) so I can get a better understanding of what I'm not doing right?  I'm confused as to what exactly the beef you have is with the geysers aside from the fact there's a duty cycle worked in, and so perhaps a picture might help.

Is it really necessary to patronize the person you're debating with?

Honestly, I see both of you at opposite extremes with regards to the Geyser rework.  Technoincubes wants game items that are consistent at all times across all playthroughs, which is kind of a staple of all "rogue-like" games.  It's a bit of a stretch to call ONI a "rogue-like", but they do have the common theme of starting over.  Geysers have been a thing that is fixed and predictable.  If you find one, you know what you can do with it, which inevitably leads to min/max strategies (which you seem to have determined to be a problem?).

On the other end of the spectrum, your argument is that having fixed game objects with little to no variation makes gameplay stale.  The idea is quite interesting, and can lead to a very broad gaming experience.  Each playthrough is different, again like a rogue-like, as the map is different each time.  But as with all variation derived from RNG, the most important aspect of that RNG is the possible range.  Technoincubes is very much correct that the way the numbers are for the new Geyser system, it is entirely possible that some or all of your Geysers will be all but useless with massive dormancy periods and low outputs.  That in and of itself is a problem, but it is aggravated by the simple fact that it's impossible to determine this to be the case until you have already sunk several hundred cycles into a playthrough.

I have yet to see anyone declare that the Geyser rework is completely and utterly horrible with no redeeming qualities whatsoever.  I have seen a lot of unspecified discontent with it, but as those opinions are further explained it always comes down to the RNG range.  The maximum duration for dormancy is too high, and the minimum resource output rate is too low for most.  Something that is easily adjustable through number balance.