New geysers are awful

[BlueLance]

 

I am though, and I still honestly don't see water being an issue, My starting water, plus two geysers I have found, all that water is more than enough to keep me going for a long time.

 

So I checked to see the one in the last picture, it is active for 128.1 Cycles out of its 216.6 Cycle Lifespan;

Active for 128.1

Inactive for 88.5 Cycles. 

Produces 1865.1g/s for 978 Seconds, out of its 1111 Second Cycle.

Giving me 1,824,067.8 Grams or 1,824.06 Kilograms of water per burst.

So in the 69 Bursts it will have when active (One Cycle is 600 seconds), I will get 125,860.14 Kilograms of water, or 125 Tiles with some to spare. So I would need to make that 125 tiles last me 88.5 Cycles. Not exactly an impossibility, multiple ways of getting water. Sure it is less than the old geysers, but the old ones spat out so much that it was pretty braindead.

 

Also, just found an actual water geyser, over 10kg/s of water for half a cycle and nothing for half a cycle. (Its also active for 24 cycles and inactive for 29) so averages at about 5kg/s of water a cycle. if its active anywhere near as long as the other two, I'm drowning. I am now drowning

 

[onlineous]

4 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

You not playing the preview branch though.

True that, but I think apart from the lower water production of the geysers, water consumption / production of other structures has not been changed? The main point was that in a well setup base you only need a bit of extra water, and there are several ways to produce that water as I have shown before.

[trukogre]

8 hours ago, PhailRaptor said:

False equivalance.  Surviving for the first 150 cycles is a direct result of having additional starting resources.  Those same resources do not exist at cycle 150, namely a reserve of temperate water that you can draw from for food and a supply of algae for oxygen.  In all of my playthroughs, if I haven't harnessed a Steam Geyser and set up Electrolyzers by that point, there's nothing I can do to recover.

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.  Let me speak more plainly.  We're operating in a thought experiment here, where we're granting the supposition that 150 cycles is forever.  Forever means you can't reach it.  If 150 cycles is forever for you, that means you can't reach 150 cycles. I don't see how anything you say above is relevant, given that assumption.  You're talking about what exists at a cycle we won't be reaching, given the assumptions of this thought experiment.  What exactly was the equivalance you're claiming was false, anyhow?  (Also, a number have streamers have full playthroughs of large bases where they went 1000+ cycles without using geysers...so there is something you could do to recover, you just haven't figured it out yet)  Have you really dug out every algae patch and melted every ice biome by cycle 150?

[PickPay]

You have to keep in mind the number of Dupes in a colony. Some play with minimal Dupes (5?) I play with around 20 and can't sustain water just from the starting amount provided...

The game should encourage growth to some extent not discourage it.

[Technoincubus]

2 hours ago, trukogre said:

We're operating in a thought experiment here, where we're granting the supposition that 150 cycles is forever.  Forever means you can't reach it.  If 150 cycles is forever for you, that means you can't reach 150 cycles

That's not a thought experiment, that's a sophism. 

[onlineous]

1 hour ago, PickPay said:

You have to keep in mind the number of Dupes in a colony. Some play with minimal Dupes (5?) I play with around 20 and can't sustain water just from the starting amount provided...

The game should encourage growth to some extent not discourage it.

That will indeed make a difference, but merely means you have to be more creative in bigger bases. I play with 12 dupes, currently around cycle 5500. I'm quite sure I could do completely without Geysers if I would be a bit more creative with regards to my water usage.

[trukogre]

45 minutes ago, Technoincubus said:

That's not a thought experiment, that's a sophism. 

No, you calling my thought experiment a sophism without any reasoning or evidence backing such a claim is a sophism.

[Roboson]

3 hours ago, trukogre said:

I don't understand what you are trying to say here.  Let me speak more plainly.  We're operating in a thought experiment here, where we're granting the supposition that 150 cycles is forever.  Forever means you can't reach it.  If 150 cycles is forever for you, that means you can't reach 150 cycles. I don't see how anything you say above is relevant, given that assumption.  You're talking about what exists at a cycle we won't be reaching, given the assumptions of this thought experiment.  What exactly was the equivalance you're claiming was false, anyhow?  (Also, a number have streamers have full playthroughs of large bases where they went 1000+ cycles without using geysers...so there is something you could do to recover, you just haven't figured it out yet)  Have you really dug out every algae patch and melted every ice biome by cycle 150?

You misunderstand. Their point was not that 150 is forever, or that it's hard to reach cycle 150, but rather that a geyser with a dormancy period of 150 cycles is significantly less than ideal. 

To state it more clearly, "150 cycles of dying of thirst feels like forever." XD

[trukogre]

16 minutes ago, Roboson said:

You misunderstand. Their point was not that 150 is forever, or that it's hard to reach cycle 150, but rather that a geyser with a dormancy period of 150 cycles is significantly less than ideal. 

To state it more clearly, "150 cycles of dying of thirst feels like forever." XD

That's not "more clearly", that's completely different.  Unless you're him under a different name, there's not much use in a discussion where you completely change the meaning of someone else's statements on their behalf. At least, I'm not interested in such a discussion.  I disagree with your new statement though, I think the current random range of dormant periods is spot on; so if you want to argue on your own behalf, have at it.  To respond to your claim of "dying of thirst", let me remind you that duplicants in ONI do not need to drink water and so even 1 cycle of dying of thirst is not possible in this game, let alone 150.

[Mjello]

I found myself constantly digging out the map to find more water... Which is what you do anyways... If I look at the entire map there is water for about 1000 cycles with my twenty dupes and bristle berry food. Maybe more.

I could actually go entirely egg based soon conserving even more water. But my main water use is for oxygen.

It makes it a constant survival story... The more dupes you have the faster you die... But not until after 100 of hours of game time.

It is a change from sustainable gameplay to constant survival. Not everyone likes it. But I found it refreshing (: . Usually I just stop playing after building a sustainable base. Now I can let it run for 10 cycles or so... Dig out new water.. Play around with ranching and farming. Dig out new water. And then there is room for silly build projects like my liquid co2 storage and stuff like that.

[Roboson]

2 minutes ago, trukogre said:

That's not "more clearly", that's completely different.  

No. I'm merely rephasing and adding humor to what he previously said. 

On 3/10/2018 at 1:44 AM, Technoincubus said:

but as long as dormance lasts 70-150 cycles geysers are a ulesess asset

See how "dormance lasts 70-150 cycles geysers are a ulesess asset" is quite similar to "geyser with a dormancy period of 150 cycles is significantly less than ideal."? Note how it is significantly different from: 

13 hours ago, trukogre said:

 Getting to 150 cycles without geysers is trivial.

 

Your whole argument is a strawman. He made a point (about how the dormancy period can render geysers useless) and instead of attacking that point, you made a case against surviving the first 150 cycles. You introduced the point as if it was his, attacked it and seemingly "won" the argument. Thing is though, that obviously wasn't the intended point because you said it, not them. Its a classic logical fallacy. 

 

So this statement here is also false:

12 minutes ago, trukogre said:

 Unless you're him under a different name, there's not much use in a discussion where you completely change the meaning of someone else's statements on their behalf.

There is indeed use for such a discussion. Not only should logical fallacies be pointed out so that the discussion is actually logical and useful, but also there is something to be said about how an open and civil discussion should really try to avoid such underhanded techniques to try and derail, undercut, or otherwise damage an otherwise intellectual debate. 

 

But I digress. The quasi-randomization of geysers can make or break maps. Already we had a bit of this with what type of geysers you got, but now even if you get the desired set of geysers, some might be on the lower end of the spectrum. That has a few negative effects imo. 

First, if you're going for that 5000+ cycle base that many of us attempt, checking to make sure you have good geysers is now incredibly important. If you want that 20-40 dupe megabase that is perfectly sustainable, having the right geysers for the job is now something you have to think about. That's not to say its impossible to do so with bad or even no geysers, but it certainly does make it (a lot) more difficult and provide you with less options. 

Which is my second point here, new geysers limit playstyles. With the previous geyser set up you had the option to rely on them or not. You could be very geyser-centric or you do whatever floated your boat. In the new system, you have no such freedom. No longer can you depend on geysers for power or water, at least not in the same way as we once could. And I find that incredibly strange. Very few upgrades have actually eliminated entire play styles and forced players into a narrower categories of ways to play. In this way, I find the change rather unfortunate. As a geyser player, I used them heavily, despite having the option to basically avoid them. Now, I have no such option and must rely on other sources of resources. There is an argument there for forcing players outside their comfort zones (which only applies to people playing before this update), but I'd prefer that be left to the players. If they want to challenge themselves, let them. If they want a cozy cushy experience, let them. There's no reason to force players to play one particular way, in fact, most of ONI has several solutions to each problem that players can choose from. So it just seems counter intuitive to force players to take the diverse approach to resources (or giant nat. gas farms) and limit their playstyle options. 

[trukogre]

1 minute ago, Roboson said:

1 minute ago, Roboson said:

 

Your whole argument is a strawman. He made a point (about how the dormancy period can render geysers useless) and instead of attacking that point, you made a case against surviving the first 150 cycles. You introduced the point as if it was his, attacked it and seemingly "won" the argument. Thing is though, that obviously wasn't the intended point because you said it, not them. Its a classic logical fallacy. 

 

He said "150 cycles is forever".  I didn't say it, he said it.   I attacked that point.  You brought up a different point he made, and pretended he never said that 150 cycles is forever.  You're simply lying at this point, so I'm done talking to you.

[Roboson]

21 minutes ago, trukogre said:

You're simply lying at this point, so I'm done talking to you.

Ditto. 

 

Edit: "trukogre sent you a message" Apparently not...

[Guest]

I'm not going to join the trukogre hate club, although there's a valid point to be made for that.

I currently have tapped into one cold steam furmaoile (don't shoot if I spelled that incorrectly) and analyzed it. I know it's randomized for every game, but here are the stats:

-active period: 17 cycles

-dormant: 21.2 cycles

-active + dormant: 38.2

-eruption period: 60s for every 459 seconds

-production while erupting: 26.8kg/s

So across the whole, full cycle that makes:

-active loops in 17 cycles: 22.22

-total eruption period (seconds): 22.22 x 60s= 1333.33

-total amount of water produced: 35733,33 kg

-Averaged over 38.2 cycles: 935,42 kg/cycle

This used to be 2417kg of water + 100kg of steam each cycle.

Fair to say that's unreasonable. It effectively destroys existing colonies which before ran perfectly fine, and heavily limits existing colonies. We already took a hard hit with the occupational upgrade forcing us to use the more water intensive berries, but now you it's really an issue. Some randomizing is ok, but this way too much. And I think a lot of people got hit much harder then me.

 

EDIT: same calculation for a natural gas geyser results in 37,68 g/s on average. That used to be 160 g/s on average.

[trukogre]

10 minutes ago, turbonl64 said:

I'm not going to join the trukogre hate club, although there's a valid point to be made for that.

I currently have tapped into one cold steam furmaoile (don't shoot if I spelled that incorrectly) and analyzed it. I know it's randomized for every game, but here are the stats:

-active period: 17 cycles

-dormant: 21.2 cycles

-active + dormant: 38.2

-eruption period: 60s for every 459 seconds

-production while erupting: 26.8kg/s

So across the whole, full cycle that makes:

-active loops in 17 cycles: 22.22

-total eruption period (seconds): 22.22 x 60s= 1333.33

-total amount of water produced: 35733,33 kg

-Averaged over 38.2 cycles: 935,42 kg/cycle

This used to be 2417kg of water + 100kg of steam each cycle.

Fair to say that's unreasonable. It effectively destroys existing colonies which before ran perfectly fine, and heavily limits existing colonies. We already took a hard hit with the occupational upgrade forcing us to use the more water intensive berries, but now you it's really an issue. Some randomizing is ok, but this way too much. And I think a lot of people got hit much harder then me.

Is the issue randomness, or total water average per cycle? it seems like people argue against the first but mean the second. It's certainly a large nerf to water average per cycle, as far as I can see, but people were making to 1000+ cycles without using geysers before, so it's hard for me to necessarily view the prior number as a necessary baseline.  There's a lot of personal freedom at play, you can debug in extra geysers, you can choose not to use geysers, but Klei at some point has to make balancing decisions based on how much resource availibility they want the default experience to have.   My opinion is that prior to this change water felt extremely abundant, which makes the game feel too easy.  Also, you're not accounting for the fact that with the introduction of eggs, no longer are people 'forced' to use berries.  In the end, since such different opinions exist, Klei either has to take a poll, or design the game they want to make.  What would you think of Klei putting in a 'geyser slider' so that people could customize their own difficulty level in this regard without having to debug them in?  Would that be satisfactory?

[Roboson]

5 minutes ago, turbonl64 said:

I'm not going to join the trukogre hate club, although there's a valid point to be made for that.

Its more like the logic police, but granted. 

 

6 minutes ago, turbonl64 said:

-Averaged over 38.2 cycles: 935,42 kg/cycle

This used to be 2417kg of water + 100kg of steam each cycle.

Fair to say that's unreasonable. It effectively destroys existing colonies which before ran perfectly fine, and heavily limits existing colonies. We already took a hard hit with the occupational upgrade forcing us to use the more water intensive berries, but now you it's really an issue. Some randomizing is ok, but this way too much. And I think a lot of people got hit much harder then me.

Yeah, there's just such a wide variety of potential outcomes. I see it a lot like getting your desired dupes at start. Its very very rare that you get 3 dupes you want right at the start. So you randomize them until you get a workable set of dupes. I feel like thats what this forces us to do. Check and recheck various world seeds until we find the option we want. Unfortunately we have to wait for world gen each time instead of just hitting a randomize button. 

[Guest]

6 minutes ago, trukogre said:

Is the issue randomness, or total water average per cycle?  It's certainly a large nerf to water average per cycle, as far as I can see, but people were making to 1000+ cycles without using geysers before, so it's hard for me to necessarily view the prior number as a necessary baseline.  There's a lot of personal freedom at play, you can debug in extra geysers, you can choose not to use geysers, but Klei at some point has to make balancing decisions based on how much resource availibility they want the default experience to have.   My opinion is that prior to this change water felt extremely abundant, which makes the game feel too easy.  Also, you're not accounting for the fact that with the introduction of eggs, no longer are people 'forced' to use berries.

I don't have issue with randomness, or geysers of the same type deviating from eachother somewhat. But if it gets cut by that much it undermines the wa the majority plays. Yes you can survive a long, long while without geysers: low dupe count. I hate that. It's slow gameplay and low interaction. We used to have 100+ dupe challenges to get sustainable. Simply impossible now.

And yes we can debug in geysers. I can also debug all research enabled. That's not a fun way to go with it. I have to be clear this is beta, and hopefully the developers are aware how big the impact really is.

1 minute ago, Roboson said:

Its more like the logic police, but granted. 

 

Yeah, there's just such a wide variety of potential outcomes. I see it a lot like getting your desired dupes at start. Its very very rare that you get 3 dupes you want right at the start. So you randomize them until you get a workable set of dupes. I feel like thats what this forces us to do. Check and recheck various world seeds until we find the option we want. Unfortunately we have to wait for world gen each time instead of just hitting a randomize button. 

Things is, you don't really know until you have a tenured scientist and analyzed the geysers. That's a lot of hours put in just to get a workable seed. A bad seed should still be playable, just harder.

I think the changes now are good for a more hardcore survival approach. But atleast give us slightly more casuals a chance!

[trukogre]

4 minutes ago, turbonl64 said:

I don't have issue with randomness, or geysers of the same type deviating from eachother somewhat. But if it gets cut by that much it undermines the wa the majority plays. Yes you can survive a long, long while without geysers: low dupe count. I hate that. It's slow gameplay and low interaction. We used to have 100+ dupe challenges to get sustainable. Simply impossible now.

And yes we can debug in geysers. I can also debug all research enabled. That's not a fun way to go with it. I have to be clear this is beta, and hopefully the developers are aware how big the impact really is.

So debugging in more geysers lacks fun, but the devs 'debugging' in more water flow for you is fun?  What's the difference?  8.8 kg/s is 8.8 kg/s, right, beta or no beta?

[Roboson]

4 minutes ago, turbonl64 said:

Things is, you don't really know until you have a tenured scientist and analyzed the geysers. That's a lot of hours put in just to get a workable seed. A bad seed should still be playable, just harder.

I think the changes now are good for a more hardcore survival approach. But atleast give us slightly more casuals a chance!

Agreed, thats sort of what I was getting at with my point about player playstyle options earlier. 

[Guest]

Just now, trukogre said:

So debugging in more geysers lacks fun, but the devs debugging in more water flow for you is fun?  What's the difference?

You got to throw that monkey wrench in here before, not again . That's a fallacy.

[trukogre]

7 minutes ago, turbonl64 said:

You got to throw that monkey wrench in here before, not again . That's a fallacy.

Asking a question about your opinion is a fallacy? I'm literally asking you, for you, for your experience, what's the difference?  You have to recognize that you brought up the idea of your experience, that the devs should take your personal gameplay experience into account ( as well as everyone else's of course), and now I ask you a question about the thing you brought up and it's a fallacy?  This fallacy thing is getting to be quite a fad in here.

[Guest]

1 minute ago, Roboson said:

Agreed, thats sort of what I was getting at with my point about player playstyle options earlier. 

Yeah, I'd love that. They made options for disease resistance and stress resistance. Why not a same option for geyser output. That would be great.

[onlineous]

2 minutes ago, turbonl64 said:

Yeah, I'd love that. They made options for disease resistance and stress resistance. Why not a same option for geyser output. That would be great.

That would be a good point, but in the meanwhile you can just debug them in.

The funny thing is that, whether this update is hated or liked, it adds a lot of realism: the population you can sustain is based on natural resources and your technological advancement.

[Roboson]

4 minutes ago, onlineous said:

The funny thing is that, whether this update is hated or liked, it adds a lot of realism: the population you can sustain is based on natural resources and your technological advancement.

Sort of. I find my new base is actually less realistic. Just going to set up a giant nat. gas farm instead of my typical geyser based system (which I can't really do anymore). 

[goboking]

12 minutes ago, trukogre said:

So debugging in more geysers lacks fun, but the devs 'debugging' in more water flow for you is fun?  What's the difference?

Not everyone runs or even knows about debug mode.  If the current geyser algorithm is currently imbalanced - that's not an argument I'm making, for the record - then that's going to negatively impact the experience of new players and those who don't know about debug mode.