Kilns should produce carbon dioxide

[melquiades]

I don't know if it is an omission or if it was intended, but i think kilns should produce carbon dioxide, because they are basically burning coal to generate that much heat to convert its products. Otherwise they would just be deleting mass (a lot!).

I think using at least the same carbon dioxide per carbon generation rate as a coal generator should be sufficient.

[AnotherBoris]

50 minutes ago, melquiades said:

because they are basically burning coal to generate that much heat to convert its products

A controversial statement. This world lives by its own rules. Matter and energy appear from nowhere and disappear into nowhere. Chemical reactions are like a herd of rebellious drunken hedgehogs. Physics is full of holes, glitches, bugs and exploits. Here you can build pyramids from liquid and push a ton of bricks through a micron hole in the wall.

So tell me, man, why are you so sure that something is burning inside the klin? And even if it burns there, why should it generate something? And even if it generate something, why, damn it, it must be carbon dioxide? Your statement tells us only that you are not imbued with the spirit of the game, and try to drag the rules of another game into this one. What for?

[BlueLance]

3 hours ago, melquiades said:

I don't know if it is an omission or if it was intended, but i think kilns should produce carbon dioxide, because they are basically burning coal to generate that much heat to convert its products. Otherwise they would just be deleting mass (a lot!).

I think using at least the same carbon dioxide per carbon generation rate as a coal generator should be sufficient.

Hydrogen gens should produce water, AETN magically cools the area around it as does wheezeworts, hatches poop coal and refined metal, All impurities in metal seem to disappear, they don't oxide. There are lots of things which are real that are not in the game.

Though if it does use coal then it would make sense for it to produce CO2

[melquiades]

 

Let me paraphrase it then... it is basically deleting coal, why not make it produce C02 if it consumes coal?.

[Christophlette]

9 minutes ago, melquiades said:

 

Let me paraphrase it then... it is basically deleting coal, why not make it produce C02 if it consumes coal?.

So you'd like it to produce 25kg of CO2 because it uses 125kg of coal to produce 100kg of refined coal ?

I'm gonna make a slickster farm right away !

[AnotherBoris]

37 minutes ago, melquiades said:

Let me paraphrase it then... it is basically deleting coal, why not make it produce C02 if it consumes coal?.

You do not answer. Why CO2? CO2 is almost useless. NG or Hydrogen looks better. Why not? Consume 125 kg of coal, produce 10kg NG

Let me paraphrase it...  "Why not" is a bad reason for anything. Why would not people cancel money, love each other and drop an atomic bomb on New York? Why not? If you are proposing something, give the reason for this. A powerful reason for people to accept and approve it. And "why not" is an excuse for schoolchildren who do not even know the beginnings of logic.

26 minutes ago, Christophlette said:

So you'd like it to produce 25kg of CO2 because it uses 125kg

 

4 hours ago, melquiades said:

I think using at least the same carbon dioxide per carbon generation rate as a coal generator should be sufficient

Coal Generator produce 20g CO2 per 1kg coal. So he talk about 2.5 kg CO2 per 125kg of coal

[Christophlette]

12 minutes ago, AnotherBoris said:

Coal Generator produce 20g CO2 per 1kg coal. So he talk about 2.5 kg CO2 per 125kg of coal

I know it wouldn't be that much. But the fact is, a lot of material is lost during the transformation. Even a coal generator is deleting a lot of mass. Heat is not a material and only an energy so there should be a lot of byproducts if we go that way.

Coal is partially made of azote too. And there is no azote is the game too. I guess the game is not meant to be too real but a glimpse of what real physics are ^^

[AnotherBoris]

3 minutes ago, Christophlette said:

lot of material is lost during the transformation.

Look at hydrogen generator. It consume 100% mass and produce only energy NG Generator produce energy and 100% initial mass as byproduct. As i said before - chemistry of ONI have no logic. Absolutely. We can just accept it as it is. This is the only way.

6 minutes ago, Christophlette said:

Coal is partially made of azote too

Laughed. If look simple - coal its pure carbon. If you go into details, coal is a complex composition of organic and inorganic products, individual for each deposit. Guess which of the variants the authors mean in the game?

[Christophlette]

44 minutes ago, AnotherBoris said:

Laughed. If look simple - coal its pure carbon. If you go into details, coal is a complex composition of organic and inorganic products, individual for each deposit. Guess which of the variants the authors mean in the game?

Pure carbon means it cannot even think of burning without oxygen. And it doesn't consume any. Unless it's only cooked with heat. But then, refined coal is a coal that has been cleaned from impurities. So simple coal is not only pure carbon then 

[AnotherBoris]

25 minutes ago, Christophlette said:

Pure carbon means it cannot even think of burning without oxygen.

And he does not think. It just burns It's ONI!

 

26 minutes ago, Christophlette said:

But then, refined coal is a coal that has been cleaned from impurities

Who told you such a stupid thing? "Refined" in ONI can mean anything! Another molecular structure. Another crystal lattice. Hatch digests it with another stomach. You enter the same slippery path as @melquiades. You use real-world terms for ONI. And they are not applicable! Refined Coal is the same Coal, it's just that it can be used for the production of steel. Who knows what he is doing with him? Can it be soaked in the blood of virgin morbs? And the fact that some of the coal is lost in the process, because they steal! Or eat. Or the gremlins inside the Klin magic box play in cards on it...

[Christophlette]

19 minutes ago, AnotherBoris said:

Who told you such a stupid thing? "Refined" in ONI can mean anything! Another molecular structure. Another crystal lattice. Hatch digests it with another stomach. You enter the same slippery path as @melquiades. You use real-world terms for ONI. And they are not applicable! Refined Coal is the same Coal, it's just that it can be used for the production of steel. Who knows what he is doing with him? Can it be soaked in the blood of virgin morbs? And the fact that some of the coal is lost in the process, because they steal! Or eat. Or the gremlins inside the Klin magic box play in cards on it...

 

1 hour ago, Christophlette said:

I guess the game is not meant to be too real but a glimpse of what real physics are ^^

You just lost the point of what I was saying.

By assuming coal is only carbon you went on that slippery slope.

Refined coal is that : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refined_coal

[AnotherBoris]

14 minutes ago, Christophlette said:

By assuming coal is only carbon you went on that slippery slope.

Hm. Let's check in game.

"(C) Coal is a combustible fuel composed of carbon"

Any questions?

 

14 minutes ago, Christophlette said:

Refined coal is that

I know it. In real life yes, its refined coal.But what are your proofs that the game has in mind the same thing?

Check game again:

"(C) Refined carbon is solid element purified from raw coal"

Man! I say it agan. Forget about examples from real life. In-game coal its carbon. Refined coal - carbon. Diamond - carbon too. Carbon gas - still carbon. Just... another carbon

[Christophlette]

1 hour ago, Christophlette said:

refined coal is a coal that has been cleaned from impurities

 

1 minute ago, AnotherBoris said:

"(C) Refined carbon is solid element purified from raw coal"

So coal isn't only carbon...  No ?...

2 minutes ago, AnotherBoris said:

"(C) Coal is a combustible fuel composed of carbon"

It says "composed". So it's not the only thing in coal.

I don't see your point. Other than wanting to be right and trying to feel superior. But you must realise that your own arguments are telling you you're wrong.

[AnotherBoris]

Just now, Christophlette said:

I don't see your point. Other than wanting to be right and trying to feel superior.

I feeling superior and without it. It's no point. I just like the process of finding the truth.

So... My argument is wrong? Maybe. But where is yours?

3 minutes ago, Christophlette said:

It says "composed". So it's not the only thing in coal.

Really? "Composed from carbon" mean "Composed from carbon and something else"? Is that what you mean? Cute.

Ok, let's see. If we heat Coal, we will get Refined Coal. Where is that mysterious "something else", about which you are telling me here? Give at least one proof that in the game in the coal is something other than carbon. Pay attention: in the game! Otherwise, it's really too easy for me to feel superior against the background of a man who can not say anything in the protection of his opinion, except to try to insult the interlocutor.

[Christophlette]

You omitted the best argument of your post. That's cute !

[Sasza22]

Every process has input and outputs. Some produce waste. It would make sense for the kiln to produce waste CO2. Especially if we can use that CO2 to feed slicksters or change it into polluted water. It would also make sense for the art of the kiln where it seems to output some sort of gas.

[Djoums]

It's just another example of mass deletion in the game. The oil refinery is a lot worse, half the mass simply disappears for no reason.

Is it a bad thing though ? I don't really mind as long as the game makes sense in its own way.

[melquiades]

I said "why not?" because everything this game has has been put together because devs wanted to that way, not because anything makes any sense... so, why not? and because this is still on early access, i was hoping any of the guys developing or players that could bother to think what changes to gamepley could introduce that change, Would it be too troublesome to have another source of CO2? for instance. I would gladly take more C02!, Thanks anyway for your insights.

I think i'll just wait for it to be modded in.

[lunazone]

This is the most passion I've ever seen surrounding coal

[QuQuasar]

I think arguments about whether or not mass deletion is fine kinda misses the forest for the trees. It's called a kiln, which by definition is an oven. It consumes 25kg of coal and produces heat and refined materials. It's art is visibly a coal fired oven.

By the game's own internal logic, burning coal produces waste Co2 (coal generator). Melquiades is correct: it should produce at least some Co2.

[AnotherBoris]

Do not get me wrong, I do not mind that klin allocated CO2. I'm only talking about the incorrectness of the choice of arguments. As I said above, there is no logic in the ONI world. Argument in the style of "Coal Generator produces CO2" is easily refuted by the argument "Hydrogen Generator does not produce anything." And NG Generator produces 100%, Pertoleum Generator 60% (I do not remember the exact figure). References to other examples from the same game show us the complete inconsistency of this method

As it seems to me, such an intricate system is introduced (surprise!) for the complication of game mechanics. To maintain the game balance. That the game was fun to play. And from this point of view, many things in the game immediately make sense. Hydrogen Generator can not produce water, otherwise the sense of the Electrolyzer is lost and the balance is completely collapsed. NG Generator produces more resources than Petroleum Generator because Petroleum is easier to obtain than NG. Coal Generator produces CO2 because if it did not, it would be an ideal "thing in itself." Brought him coal (by hands), he ate it and voila! Here to us energy.

And from this point of view, the @melquiadesoffer makes sense. Kiln after all, in fact, the very "thing in itself." He poured coal into it, got refined coal or ceramic. Well, and heat, although all the devices do it, so we are all used to it. If klin starts to allocate CO2 This will be another small problem that will have to be solved. On the other hand, this is an additional source of CO2, and developers will need to carefully check everything so that no one has invented a new exploit on this fact and again broke the already fragile balance of this game

And, again, I will repeat my question. And why should they do it? One "Why not", as it seems to me, is not enough as a reason

 

 

 

[QuQuasar]

18 minutes ago, AnotherBoris said:

Argument in the style of "Coal Generator produces CO2" is easily refuted by the argument "Hydrogen Generator does not produce anything."

I think this is where we disagree.I can use the same example of hydrogen vs coal to support my argument.

How the game treats matter doesn't make much sense, but how it treats *hydrogen* is consistent. Hydrogen in ONI can be consumed for energy without consuming O2 or creating water, and as a result electrolysis can produce more power than it consumes. That's just the way hydrogen works in the game. It doesn't square with reality, but it's internally consistent and makes sense for game balance.

But what happens when you burn coal? Does it output Co2 or not? That depends on what specific building you burn it in.

From a fragile game balance standpoint, introducing the Kiln already 'broke' it. Previously, we would have burned that coal for power, producing waste Co2 in the coal generator. Producing an equivilent amount of Co2 from the kiln (2% of the coal's mass) would simply restore the status quo in terms of what you get when you burn coal.

[AnotherBoris]

Just now, QuQuasar said:

.I can use the same example of hydrogen vs coal to support my argument

And you will be right But the point is not to find out which of us is right The point is to get developers to do something. Above what they themselves conceived. And whoever wins in our discussion ... they do not care I'm trying to convey this idea.

In order for people who are already working every day, have done something extra, a good reason is needed. "Why not" from the next user - not what will make them move

[Sasza22]

So lets look at the kiln from a gameplay standpoint. We know what are the positives of having one but what about drawbacks. Do you want one in your room? Where do you ideally put one?

It`s considered an industral machine(or it should be at least, i actually din`t test it) so you don`t want it in your living space. It produces heat so you want it far from your farms and water supplies to prevent them from heating. So why CO2? When setting up coal generators i usually put them at the bottom of the base so i don`t get extra CO2 falling down. I tend to make an industrial zone down there where the kiln belongs as well. But with it not producing any gas or requiring electricity i can put it anywhere like for example near some construction i`m planning so i don`t have to deliver the ceramic too far or in the swamp biome so it`s closer to the clay.

Now if it produced CO2 it would be a drawback when putting it outside your industrial zone where you got your skimmers set up as it will fill the area with CO2.  It would require an extra algae terrarium to nullify that or some design around it. Or just buliding exosuits and not caring about anything. I kinda think that sort of gameplay interaction would be a good thing althrough it wouldn`t bother most base designs.

[Yunru]

On 18/08/2018 at 8:07 AM, BlueLance said:

Hydrogen gens should produce water, AETN magically cools the area around it as does wheezeworts, hatches poop coal and refined metal, All impurities in metal seem to disappear, they don't oxide. There are lots of things which are real that are not in the game.

Though if it does use coal then it would make sense for it to produce CO2

You state all these and don't mention the fact that the coal generator doesn't produce (the right amount of) CO2? Or consume oxygen.