Geysers, Numbers.

[SkunkMaster]

So, new geysers, nice right ? 

 

Well, some like them some don't. Some say they are ****, others say they are awesome. Both are right, because of the range of the geysers.

 

It is possible to calculate the possible  max / min output of the different geysers, Based on the chart by R9MX4.

Spoiler

 

Math is quite simple: Eruption rate/cycle * "dupe cycle" / cycle length * Year active percent.

For example a water geysers MAX output on a dupe cycle basis is 30.000 kg. That's 30 ton EACH cycle. Comparably the lowest possible output is a meager 52,63 kg.

The "oldschool" geyser had, according to the wiki, a output of around 2.400 kg each cycle. 

If we take this to heart, then the AVARAGE water geyser SHOULD be stronger then the old school geysers. - unless there is something i'm missing?

 

Also, did you guys know, a water geyser can potentially erupt it's maximum amount of water in the time span of 6 seconds. That's potentially 5000 kg a second ! 

[FIXBUGFIXBUGFIX]

The "cycle" in "eruption kg per cycle" means the dupe cycle which is equal to 600s. instead of the eruption cycle.

So the average output is simply equal to Eruption rate/cycle * Year active percent.

The output of the water geyser is vary from 100 to 3 000kg/cycle, and the average is 1 100kg.

It's not as powerful as the old geyser, but still outputs much water in a lower temperature.

 

But don't forget there is no guarantee that you could have at least one water geyser in your new map.

Usually, you could have up to two cool steam geyser, but they are even more powerless than the new water geyser.

[SkunkMaster]

Just now, R9MX4 said:

The "cycle" in "eruption kg per cycle" means the dupe cycle which is equal to 600s. instead of the eruption cycle.

Are you sure? I mean, i know you're the one who made the chart, but i saw the "raw data" that you pulled out, and it does no where say anything about regular cycles.

Also my observations of the geysers seem to go in-line with my math, so far atleast.

Think about it. 2 tons of magma each cycle ? that would be insane. 

[Saturnus]

16 minutes ago, R9MX4 said:

But don't forget there is no guarantee that you could have at least one water geyser in your new map.

You can choose exactly what geysers you want by save scrumming in a survival game. Geyser type is determined when the fog of war is lifted. In debug you lift the fog of war on the whole map at once so you don't have that option though.

[SkunkMaster]

4 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

You can choose exactly what geysers you want by save scrumming in a survival game. Geyser type is determined when the fog of war is lifted. In debug you lift the fog of war on the whole map at once so you don't have that option though.

That is such a, sorry my wording, sh*tty way to deal with it in my opinion. It's like when you reload the game just to get a dupe from the printer you like. 

I do understand there is no way around the dupe part, but the geysers should be determined at generation, not at fog-lift. 

[FIXBUGFIXBUGFIX]

29 minutes ago, SkunkMaster said:

Are you sure? I mean, i know you're the one who made the chart, but i saw the "raw data" that you pulled out, and it does no where say anything about regular cycles.

Also my observations of the geysers seem to go in-line with my math, so far atleast.

I'm sure.

Spoiler

You could find following code in public class GeyserConfigurator

        public float GetEmitRate()
        {
            float num = Mathf.Lerp(this.geyserType.minRatePerCycle, this.geyserType.maxRatePerCycle, this.rateRoll);
            float num2 = 600f / this.GetIterationLength();
            float num3 = num / num2;
            return num3 / this.GetOnDuration();
        }

 

So the GetEmitRate (which is shown as the emit rate in game)=

Mathf.Lerp(this.geyserType.minRatePerCycle, this.geyserType.maxRatePerCycle, this.rateRoll) / (600f / this.GetIterationLength) / this.GetOnDuration

=RatePerCycle / 600 * eruption cycle/eruption length= RatePerCycle(shown in the sheet as the Eruption Rate) / 600 / eruption percent

 

These code means

RatePerCycle=600*eruption percent*emit rate shown in game=eruption amount per dupe cycle

I also misunderstood the means of the RatePerCycle (Eruption Rate) at first. Until I found a geyser which doesn't meet my old conclusion, I tried to look for relevant code and find the code above.

[Saturnus]

Just now, SkunkMaster said:

That is such a, sorry my wording, sh*tty way to deal with it in my opinion. It's like when you reload the game just to get a dupe from the printer you like. 

I do understand there is no way around the dupe part, but the geysers should be determined at generation, not at fog-lift. 

Don't shoot the messenger. I merely stated that you actually can determine exactly which geysers you want to appear on your map in response to @R9MX4.

[SkunkMaster]

Just now, R9MX4 said:

I'm sure.

  Hide contents

 

You could find following code in public class GeyserConfigurator

        public float GetEmitRate()
        {
            float num = Mathf.Lerp(this.geyserType.minRatePerCycle, this.geyserType.maxRatePerCycle, this.rateRoll);
            float num2 = 600f / this.GetIterationLength();
            float num3 = num / num2;
            return num3 / this.GetOnDuration();
        }

So the GetEmitRate (which is shown as the emit rate in game)=

Mathf.Lerp(this.geyserType.minRatePerCycle, this.geyserType.maxRatePerCycle, this.rateRoll) / (600f / this.GetIterationLength) / this.GetOnDuration

=RatePerCycle / 600 * eruption cycle/eruption length= RatePerCycle(shown in the sheet as the Eruption Rate) / 600 / eruption percent

 

I also misunderstood the means of the RatePerCycle (Eruption Rate) at first. Until I found a geyser which doesn't meet my old conclusion, I tried to look for relevant code and find the code above.

Interesting. That sadly makes the geyser a bit more boring. In my opinion.

Just now, Saturnus said:

Don't shoot the messenger. I merely stated that you actually can determine exactly which geysers you want to appear on your map in response to @R9MX4.

Nah man, all good. Single player game, all should play as they see fit and enjoyable. Just saying that it is sad that the programmers didn't go "smarter" about this...

[FIXBUGFIXBUGFIX]

1 minute ago, SkunkMaster said:

Interesting. That sadly makes the geyser a bit more boring. In my opinion.

Maybe devs will change the data about the geysers in the future update.

As you can see, the data about the crude oil is odd.

 

I'd like to see a more powerful and erratic geyser.

[SkunkMaster]

Just now, R9MX4 said:

Maybe devs will change the data about the geysers in the future update.

As you can see, the data about the crude oil is odd.

 

I'd like to see a more powerful and erratic geyser.

Oh yeah, Just picturing the 5 ton water / sec geyser made me laugh. Explosive geyser indeed.

[Saturnus]

1 minute ago, R9MX4 said:

Maybe devs will change the data about the geysers in the future update.

As you can see, the data about the crude oil is odd.

I think that's a fair assumption.

Not sure why it's called a leaky oil fissure actually. Unless you do some serious cooling it'll be mostly petroleum you get out of it. And with a bit of tweaking you can have automatically crack it into enormous amounts of natural gas. 

[SkunkMaster]

Just now, Saturnus said:

I think that's a fair assumption.

Not sure why it's called a leaky oil fissure actually. Unless you do some serious cooling it'll be mostly petroleum you get out of it. And with a bit of tweaking you can have automatically crack it into enormous amounts of natural gas. 

It's very interesting you should mention that, cause I've found just such a oil fissure, straight next to a copper volcano, and i was thinking of trying to make some kind of OVERPOWRED natural gas geyser with them.

Hmmm, seems i might be on to something

[FIXBUGFIXBUGFIX]

9 minutes ago, Saturnus said:

I think that's a fair assumption.

Not sure why it's called a leaky oil fissure actually. Unless you do some serious cooling it'll be mostly petroleum you get out of it. And with a bit of tweaking you can have automatically crack it into enormous amounts of natural gas. 

Actually I'm not care about the temperature. As you can see, the eruption cycle of the crude oil geyser is even longer than the dormancy cycle and its yield range is so big.

It shows a totally different behavior feature with all kinds of other geysers. I'm not sure whether it's intended but it makes me feel strange.

[PhailRaptor]

Well, that would follow with the name "leaky".  The concept would be that it doesn't erupt so much as bubble over.  Trying to decipher the table, it looks like it is 100% active while in the eruption phase?  That would mean that oil is constantly flowing out of it in somewhat lesser amounts.

[Ketmol]

@SkunkMaster So maybe the reason some love it and some hate it is simply the big span from OP to 100% useless that the geysers can be?

Maybe they should just make the span smaller between the best possible output and the worst?

As it is now having a good dice roll on map generation or a bad one will result in very very different game-play experience. Some might enjoy that but a lot of people won't and will feel forced to start over if they have to bad luck on the geyser outputs because they will feel limited knowing they could have made this or that system work if they just had a better roll on the geysers...

 

or well, since they are calculated when fog of war is lifted, people just re loading saves until they get the desired trait witch makes the whole thing rather pointless with the difference in output.

[BlueLance]

Can someone please tell me something about the water geyser, it says Cycles Min 60, is that active or inactive or both?

[FIXBUGFIXBUGFIX]

1 minute ago, BlueLance said:

Can someone please tell me something about the water geyser, it says Cycles Min 60, is that active or inactive or both?

both

[SkunkMaster]

12 minutes ago, Ketmol said:

@SkunkMaster So maybe the reason some love it and some hate it is simply the big span from OP to 100% useless that the geysers can be?

Maybe they should just make the span smaller between the best possible output and the worst?

As it is now having a good dice roll on map generation or a bad one will result in very very different game-play experience. Some might enjoy that but a lot of people won't and will feel forced to start over if they have to bad luck on the geyser outputs because they will feel limited knowing they could have made this or that system work if they just had a better roll on the geysers...

If you read some of the follow up answers, they seem to vary less, but also be nerfed somewhat comparably. 

That said, i still believe you end up with more in the end now, then you used to. My current map has 2 copper volcano's and a big magma volcano, So i wont need any gas geyser for power. And with eggs for food, well. 

All i need is oxygen generation. But since you now also can breed pufts and morbs... i feel like, those who complain are those who don't see the possibilities they're offered with this patch? I don't know.

I my self like this new patch and direction. There is not just more to do, but also more reason to go out and explore, and more reason to play new colonies. I might have one colony with a bunch of volcano's, like this one, and this might lead to a colony with excess amounts of steam generators and puft+morb farm for oxygen.

My last colony had 3 cool steam geysers, 1 water geyser and 1 polluted oxygen geyser. So that colony would at cycle 1000 look completely different then my current will look at 1000, And i think THAT was the point of this update, to create a bigger variance in colony "growth" and what kind of tech you use.

pre-ranch update it felt like most colonies had a cookie-cutter approach regarding how and what you build. Atleast for me when i was playing i would always build the same kind of setups, and the only thing that would change would be placement.

[BlueLance]

15 minutes ago, R9MX4 said:

both

Ok well if its both then I think that table is out of date, I have a water geyser which is active for 25.6 cycles and inactive for 26.8. So thats a total of 51.4 cycles.

[SkunkMaster]

Just now, BlueLance said:

Ok well if its both then I think that table is out of date, I have a water geyser which is active for 25.6 cycles and inactive for 26.8. So thats a total of 51.4 cycles.

no. The active is part of the inactive. So to figure out how long it's inactive, you have to substract the active part from the inactive. In other words your geyser is inactive for 26.8 - 25.6 = 1,2 cycles. 

[FIXBUGFIXBUGFIX]

11 minutes ago, BlueLance said:

Ok well if its both then I think that table is out of date, I have a water geyser which is active for 25.6 cycles and inactive for 26.8. So thats a total of 51.4 cycles.

The 60 in the table means the Eruption Cycle is 60 seconds.

The Year Cycle means the active and dormancy cycle, which usually vary from 15 000 seconds to 135 000 seconds, which equals to 25~225 cycles.

 

Sorry for the fuzzy explanation of the table.

[BlueLance]

Ahh ok thats fine then, i was just worried we might have had an uodate and the table was incorrect, that makes more sense now! 

Personally i love the new update, each geyser allows or forces you to change how you go about things. I have 2 steam and 1 water right next to my base, so currently I am flooding in water.

Also don't worry! I may not have understood it but you are being very helpful and that is what matters!

[JonnyMonroe]

8 hours ago, Ketmol said:

because they will feel limited knowing they could have made this or that system work if they just had a better roll on the geysers...

This exactly. I abandoned a 200 cycle survival run once I realised I didn't have sufficient geysers on the map to build the system I wanted to build (map had only 1 metal volcano with a low output and it was gold as well - the worst type for thermal energy).

 

After that I started a few fresh maps in debug searching for a high output iron, copper or magma volcano but never found anything to my satisfaction. I've decided since to give up on Ranch until the volcanos and geysers are set at seed so I can find a map with the settings I like.

[Saturnus]

18 minutes ago, JonnyMonroe said:

After that I started a few fresh maps in debug searching for a high output iron, copper or magma volcano but never found anything to my satisfaction. I've decided since to give up on Ranch until the volcanos and geysers are set at seed so I can find a map with the settings I like.

Or as I noted above, save scrum to you get what you want.

[BlueLance]

14 minutes ago, JonnyMonroe said:

This exactly. I abandoned a 200 cycle survival run once I realised I didn't have sufficient geysers on the map to build the system I wanted to build (map had only 1 metal volcano with a low output and it was gold as well - the worst type for thermal energy).

If thats the case why not just debug them in and delete the ones you dont want? I donno if thats possible or if they will always put out the same numbers.