Exploits ruin the game, they need to go

[clickrush]

I'am not going to read all these wall of texts but just wanted to be sure that everyone knows the following when discussing this topic:

1. Fixed heat output is intended

The game files clearly show that every of the dozen or so fixed heat output buildings are intentionally doing so. It would be a matter of seconds to change a building from fixed heat (like the electrolyzer) to a dynamic heat output (like the natural gas generator).

2. Fixed heat output is a feasable simulation tradeoff

Fixed heat output buildings simulate chemical reactions and similar. ONI doesn't have a chemistry simulation outside of buildings. It is well known that chemical reactions can either consume or release physical energy, we're talking about endothermic vs exothermic reactions here. Also some reactions need a specific temperature to work optimally. Using a fixed heat output simulates these complex things into a easily understandable game mechanic.

2. Fixed heat output is good design

The fixed heat output mechanic is already a interesting gameplay mechanic that solves this problem in a complex way, because all the fixed heat output buildings have material I/O that first needs to be controlled and supplied in the correct way to make use of the cooling mechanic in the first place. As it stands right now dumping materials into space for cooling is not feasable nor sustainable in any way shape or form. Anyone arguing this matter can try to set up a sustainable high tech base with high quality food (berry sludge +) and long term cooling solutions for all the equipment w/o using fixed heat output cooling designs. Good luck.

[TehPlayer14]

2 minutes ago, clickrush said:

I'am not going to read all these wall of texts but just wanted to be sure that everyone knows the following when discussing this topic:

1. Fixed heat output is intended

The game files clearly show that every of the dozen or so fixed heat output buildings are intentionally doing so. It would be a matter of seconds to change a building from fixed heat (like the electrolyzer) to a dynamic heat output (like the natural gas generator).

2. Fixed heat output is a feasable simulation tradeoff

Fixed heat output buildings simulate chemical reactions and similar. ONI doesn't have a chemistry simulation outside of buildings. It is well known that chemical reactions can either consume or release physical energy, we're talking about endothermic vs exothermic reactions here. Also some reactions need a specific temperature to work optimally. Using a fixed heat output simulates these complex things into a easily understandable game mechanic.

2. Fixed heat output is good design

The fixed heat output mechanic is already a interesting gameplay mechanic that solves this problem in a complex way, because all the fixed heat output buildings have material I/O that first needs to be controlled and supplied in the correct way to make use of the cooling mechanic in the first place. As it stands right now dumping materials into space for cooling is not feasable nor sustainable in any way shape or form. Anyone arguing this matter can try to set up a sustainable high tech base with high quality food (berry sludge +) and long term cooling solutions for all the equipment w/o using fixed heat output cooling designs. Good luck.

With the pipe temperature automation Fixed heat wouldn't be needed because you could manage stuff that goes out of norm

[Sevio]

2 minutes ago, clickrush said:

I'am not going to read all these wall of texts but just wanted to be sure that everyone knows the following when discussing this topic:

1. Fixed heat output is intended

...

2. Fixed heat output is a feasable simulation tradeoff

...

2. Fixed heat output is good design

...

1) Intended yes, but not for the purpose that it has been turned to.

2) It is when it raises the temperature, very debatable when it opens up a heat deletion shortcut that can be used to easily cool entire bases.

3) Entirely subjective, as the walls of text you decided to skip have made clear.

[watermelen671]

5 minutes ago, landromat said:

And you'll lose much more in the future. Keep going. Show us all the exploits on the forums. devs are watching you

 

4 minutes ago, clickrush said:

It would be a matter of seconds to change a building from fixed heat (like the electrolyzer) to a dynamic heat output (like the natural gas generator).

Remember what happened the LAST time they attempted to fix heat? And they're STILL fixing heat errors like the demonic shower from Hell (Michigan).

Spoiler

BTW that shower bug has been fixed.

23 hours ago, Cheerio said:

• Fixed weird building temperature behaviour.
• Fixed showers overheating and destroying the whole world.

 

[landromat]

fixed temperature output looks like a crutch and should be fixed, like many many things in the game. 

I don't like exploit users. They're great game testers, but bad players

[JonnyMonroe]

21 minutes ago, 0xFADE said:

Nice sweeper designs.  Though I would guess they would eventually overheat over time unless you are cooling the liquid they are in.  Still nice stuff.

I am cooling it. Tempshift plates in the 'pits' on the roof allow the inner oil pools to trade heat and the sweepers only get a small amount of heat over time so I don't bother actively cooling them beyond normal conduction.

 

4 minutes ago, clickrush said:

The fixed heat output mechanic is already a interesting gameplay mechanic that solves this problem in a complex way, because all the fixed heat output buildings have material I/O that first needs to be controlled and supplied in the correct way to make use of the cooling mechanic in the first place. As it stands right now dumping materials into space for cooling is not feasable nor sustainable in any way shape or form. Anyone arguing this matter can try to set up a sustainable high tech base with high quality food (berry sludge +) and long term cooling solutions for all the equipment w/o using fixed heat output cooling designs. Good luck.

Easy. The output from 3-4 NGGs is ample ph2o for exhaust cooling. You can't avoid fixed temp output since most buildings in the game have it but if the challenge is to simply not abuse it then it's simple.

[clickrush]

Just now, Sevio said:

1) Intended yes, but not for the purpose that it has been turned to.

2) It is when it raises the temperature, very debatable when it opens up a heat deletion shortcut that can be used to easily cool entire bases.

3) Entirely subjective, as the walls of text you decided to skip have made clear.

I almost have to assume you either never did the math for cooling large bases or you figured something out that I'am not aware of. But from what I know these points are not subjective at all, except you assume that high tech, high value food bases should be non-sustainable.

Anyone who claims that fixed heat output is exploitative, unecessary and unintended for cooling lategame bases: Please show us your sustainable high tech base that doesn't use this or at least a complete debug base that proves your point.

The only two long term cooling solutions aside from fixed heat output is polluted water boiling and dumping materials into space. The former might be barely enough but it has a much worse throughput/power demand ratio, also your camp would need to label it as an 'expoit' if you apply the same logic as with the fixed heat discussion. The latter is straight up non-feasable.

[_Q_]

Making input equal to output would just make things easier for me. Would have easy way to clean all that polluted water that is on the map and use it for showers and toilets, and even plants without any need to invest any additional power into it.

Current state is that if you want to use all that polluted water you need to have some way of cooling down the output to be usable for plants.

On the other hand I can use 90 Celsius water for showers and no one will complain.

The game is strange in some aspects.

Anyway making output equal to input would just add tons of free water, and later on in case of cold polluted water I would just have to heat it up a bit with some oil. A bit more of pipes to build later on and much safer early game.

[clickrush]

14 minutes ago, JonnyMonroe said:

I am cooling it. Tempshift plates in the 'pits' on the roof allow the inner oil pools to trade heat and the sweepers only get a small amount of heat over time so I don't bother actively cooling them beyond normal conduction.

 

Easy. The output from 3-4 NGGs is ample ph2o for exhaust cooling. You can't avoid fixed temp output since most buildings in the game have it but if the challenge is to simply not abuse it then it's simple.

From this statement I can already see how you didn't do the math nor tried this out in a real game over many cycles. Show us your 'non-abusive' bases!

[Sevio]

2 minutes ago, clickrush said:

The only two long term cooling solutions aside from fixed heat output is polluted water boiling and dumping materials into space. The former might be barely enough but it has a much worse throughput/power demand ratio, also your camp would need to label it as an 'expoit' if you apply the same logic as with the fixed heat discussion. The latter is straight up non-feasable.

Worts and AETNs can go a long way if you're not trying to sustain a huge base, but this issue with the water sieve heat deletion should not be addressed from the premise that huge, high tech bases must be heat sustainable through using this method. If removing it makes late game bases unfeasible, a new way will have to be created, if only giving us more expendable mass to vent into space or adding radiators that can be placed on the surface to radiate heat directly by piping hot liquids through.

[JonnyMonroe]

1 minute ago, clickrush said:

The only two long term cooling solutions aside from fixed heat output is polluted water boiling and dumping materials into space

 You do both;and the power demand isn't bad at all.

Boil polluted water, let the steam drift into space. This thing cools my base (alongside an AETN and some wheezes). It consumes about 120g/s polluted water (varies based on how much heat I'm dealing with at any given time, which is mostly down to eruption cycles). This thing keeps my stables cool even though my hatches eat igneous rock at extremely high temperatures;

5 minutes ago, clickrush said:

From this statement I can already see how you didn't do the math nor tried this out in a real game over many cycles. Show us your 'non-abusive' bases!

Dude that build has been running for hundreds of cycles. The sweeper arms are in vacuum so the volcano doesn't heat them. They gain a small amount of heat from the igneous rock they sweep but they aren't in contact for long enough for it to transfer a significant amount of heat.

[JonnyMonroe]

Just now, turbonl64 said:

I really hate to instigate, but usually when somebody says "you didn't do the math", you can call BS.

I don't think he's arguing in good faith tbh. 3+ pages back we agreed to put away the term 'exploit' and start discussing from the perspective of good design and he came in raging about exploits again, trying to drag the whole discussion back down to the pit it started in.

[clickrush]

@turbonl64

The fact that you cannot show a base that doesn't use fixed heat output as cooling is already suspicious but I give you the benefit of the doubt and look forward to your cooling design.

@JonnyMonroe

I already addressed this in a previous post but how is polluted water boiling any less 'exploitative' than fixed heat output? It uses the 'illogica' or 'unrealistic' fact that heat is not correctly transfered between the material conversion, or in other words: It works almost exactly like fixed heat ouptut. On top of that your solar pannels aren't cooled. and from the style of your base I assume there is other uncooled equpment lying around that isn't.

[XEVEN]

6 hours ago, jmf35 said:

Heat deletion is lame and it defies common-sense expectations. Inputs below internal machine temp should be raised, input above internal machine temp should be output at original temp. Internal machine temp should only be influenced by external air temp (not input material temp, to avoid runaway overheating). I don't expect machines to use perfect real-world materials science, but being able to reduce 100° water to 40° for 120w is absurd. The current mechanic feels ways too dumbed down for a quasi-realistic physics sim and I'd be shocked if it's intended to leave beta in this state.

Why does any of that matter when you have infinite slush/CO2/polluted oxygen geysers that you can use to soak up heat and then simply dump it into space? I mean, I don't even use the output temps of buildings to delete heat purposefully, I'm just honestly curious why it matters so much. Space is the ultimate heat deleting "exploit", yet nobody is complaining about that...

The sieve is a pain in the ass and ultimately requires you to run manual missions to the surface to resupply your filtration medium. Space is 100% automatable heat deletion.

[JonnyMonroe]

Just now, clickrush said:

@turbonl64

The fact that you cannot show a base that doesn't use fixed heat output as cooling is already suspicious but I give you the benefit of the doubt and look forward to your cooling design.

@JonnyMonroe

I already addressed this in a previous post but how is polluted water boiling any less 'exploitative' than fixed heat output? It uses the 'illogica' or 'unrealistic' fact that heat is not correctly transfered between the material conversion, or in other words: It works almost exactly like fixed heat ouptut. On top of that your solar pannels aren't cooled. and from the style of your base I assume there is other uncooled equpment lying around that isn't.

If I vent all the steam I create into space then how does it matter if not all the heat is preserved in the transition? Seriously if the steam came out with the same thermal capacity as the polluted water it would still just vanish in the void. If it came out with 1,000 times MORE thermal energy it would STILL just vanish to the void.

You sound like you're desperate for some kind of 'gotcha' and it just looks pathetic.

[JonnyMonroe]

4 minutes ago, clickrush said:

On top of that your solar pannels aren't cooled. and from the style of your base I assume there is other uncooled equpment lying around that isn't.

Solar panels don't generate heat.

Everything else is cooled.

Do you play the game at all?

[clickrush]

Just now, JonnyMonroe said:

Solar panels don't generate heat.

Everything else is cooled.

Do you play the game at all?

I missed that update where they didn't. My bad. You're right I probably went full retard there.

[PhailRaptor]

I hate to pull out "that term" again, but the simple fact is that it is an industry standard definition.  It is objective and fixed.  There are no subjective interpretations of what is or is not "one of those".  It's a very clear, black and white, yes or no.

An Exploit is an intended game mechanic that results in an unintended gameplay pattern as a result.  It's based on the verb form (to exploit an individual), which means to take advantage of.

But being an exploit is not automatically good or bad.  Each exploit must be evaluated case-by-case to determine whether the resulting, unintended gameplay pattern is health or unhealthy for the game.  This in turn requires some pretty wide ranging considerations.  Does it trivialize or render obsolete other areas of gameplay?  Is the new pattern interesting?  Does it warp other gameplay patterns to sustain itself?  Does it feel "required" to be competitive or relevant?  The answers to those questions are up to the developers of the game to decide.  They may, or may not, choose to go looking for feedback to better inform their decision.

"Arguing semantics" over whether or not something is an exploit or not isn't just unhelpful, it's irrelevant.

As for fixed temperature outputs, they very much do feel exploity.  But the reason they are not is that they are intended by the developers.  Not only have they, in the past, openly declared it so, but several long time users have actually opened up the game code and examined it.  It is very clearly intended by the person or people who wrote the code.  It is intended that these devices output their "waste" products at a fixed temperature.  Between these 2 data points, there is no question on the subject.  It cannot be an exploit, because it is an intended effect, not an accidental one.

Whether or not it is good game design, however, is still very much up for debate.  I personally don't like it, and I hope that as the game nears a release state (which it clearly does not seem to be close to at all) they will be removed.  But such a change will likely require an additional cooling method, something low tech with limited effectiveness, to form a first stepping stone from the end of early game to the middle of mid game in order to replace the fixed temp outputs.

[TehPlayer14]

15 minutes ago, PhailRaptor said:

I hate to pull out "that term" again, but the simple fact is that it is an industry standard definition.  It is objective and fixed.  There are no subjective interpretations of what is or is not "one of those".  It's a very clear, black and white, yes or no.

An Exploit is an intended game mechanic that results in an unintended gameplay pattern as a result.  It's based on the verb form (to exploit an individual), which means to take advantage of.

But being an exploit is not automatically good or bad.  Each exploit must be evaluated case-by-case to determine whether the resulting, unintended gameplay pattern is health or unhealthy for the game.  This in turn requires some pretty wide ranging considerations.  Does it trivialize or render obsolete other areas of gameplay?  Is the new pattern interesting?  Does it warp other gameplay patterns to sustain itself?  Does it feel "required" to be competitive or relevant?  The answers to those questions are up to the developers of the game to decide.  They may, or may not, choose to go looking for feedback to better inform their decision.

"Arguing semantics" over whether or not something is an exploit or not isn't just unhelpful, it's irrelevant.

As for fixed temperature outputs, they very much do feel exploity.  But the reason they are not is that they are intended by the developers.  Not only have they, in the past, openly declared it so, but several long time users have actually opened up the game code and examined it.  It is very clearly intended by the person or people who wrote the code.  It is intended that these devices output their "waste" products at a fixed temperature.  Between these 2 data points, there is no question on the subject.  It cannot be an exploit, because it is an intended effect, not an accidental one.

Whether or not it is good game design, however, is still very much up for debate.  I personally don't like it, and I hope that as the game nears a release state (which it clearly does not seem to be close to at all).  But such a change will likely require an additional cooling method, something low tech with limited effectiveness, to form a first stepping stone from the end of early game to the middle of mid game in order to replace the fixed temp outputs.

No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit

[PhailRaptor]

1 minute ago, TehPlayer14 said:

No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit

As with all things Wikipedia, alternative corroboration is recommended.  The page even declares that it is in need of verification.

[WanderingKid]

3 minutes ago, TehPlayer14 said:

No

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Video_game_exploit

Yes?  The first sentence of the article even says it directly:

In video games, an exploit is the use of a bug or glitches, game system, rates, hit boxes, speed or level design etc. by a player to their advantage in a manner not intended by the game's designers.

Tell me where in this conversation about sieves is the exploit.  The devs coded it to do this on purpose.  Might not be a great design choice, but it is not an exploit.

Now, there IS currently a few exploits I didn't mention in my wall earlier.  Infinite waterfall pushing steam turbines.  Batteries in edge cases able to provide endless cooling.  I don't think anyone here is arguing these aren't a bug due to the engine and it will take time for the developers to find a fix for it.

[XEVEN]

Any geyser output >>> radiator through hot spot >>> space vent

Who the hell is going to be using sieves for heat deletion a couple months from now anyway? I certainly won't be.

What is the difference between a door heat deleter and pumping it into space? Basically nothing. Is a door deleter an exploit? Then so is dumping heat into space. A void is a void. One is provided by the devs, one you have to actually build.

[WanderingKid]

Just now, XEVEN said:

Any geyser output >>> radiator through hot spot >>> space vent

Who the hell is going to be using sieves for heat deletion a couple months from now anyway?

CO2 vents to vacuum.  Dump heat, move on.  Chlorine geysers too perhaps, but they tend to run hot.  Hey, I finally have a good reason to starve my slicks!

[JonnyMonroe]

1 minute ago, WanderingKid said:

Batteries in edge cases able to provide endless cooling.

The battery thing actually isn't a bug. It's an unintentional result of a sloppy fix put in place to prevent players from abusing the heat generation of buildings like Tepidizers to go over their maximum allowed temp.

 

The point of your post is still completely valid though.

1 minute ago, WanderingKid said:

CO2 vents to vacuum

Those do a few grams per second. Not really viable tbh.

[clickrush]

16 minutes ago, PhailRaptor said:

But such a change will likely require an additional cooling method (...)

I think this is the bottom line. So far I can't fathom a feasable cooling solution that doesn't feel 'exploity' by the standards that are mentioned here. Dumping materials into space just isn't it. The solution we saw above which does that couldn't even cool enough water for a full sleet wheat farm.

So if Klei provides more interesting alternatives I'am all for changeing the fixed heat output mechanics. But as it stands now it wouldn't be a good decision in my book.