Trego

  • Content count

    153
  • Joined

  • Last visited

 Content Type 

Profiles

Forums

Downloads

Klei Bug Tracker

Game Updates

Hot Lava Bug Reporter

Everything posted by Trego

  1. That's not a fact, that's an opinion. A. There are multiple different systems to produce ethanol, as we've seen in this thread, and multiple different fossil fuel burning generators, so you're comparing an unknown to another unknown. B. Getting more specific, we're unclear not only on what type of thing is happening, but how much of each. Producing how much ethanol to how much burnt fossil fuel, what ratio are you using? Are we equalizing based on watts produced, or mass processed? Where in the process are we measuring? C. What definition for "dirtier" are you using? One person could say CO2 is the dirtiest thing around, it causes global warming. Someone else could say it's neutral. yet another person could say that CO2 is super cleaning, because it's a sterile environment and food stored in it loses germs. I could go on for paragraphs about the vagueness of the term "dirtier", but I'm sure we all get the idea by now. "Venting anything out to space is a generic mechanic of the game and nobody suggested to vent the excess of pre nerf cool slush geyser to space in order to solve its overpowered nature. Why? Because it was an opinion based discussion on the balance exactly as it is right now." More likely no one suggested that because that suggestion doesn't really make sense, unlike venting CO2 to space which actually solves the problems people were having with excess CO2. "I think the outputs are way too overpowered for those wanting to get the byproducts and too of a hassle for those who don't want them" All of the outputs are overpowered? Or just the 'byproduct' outputs? It's kinda a weird subject, in that the amount of dirt produced is very high, but it also seems right that dirt isn't that scarce, somehow. I suppose I feel that the dirt sources elsewhere are undertuned, so I'm kinda ok with the dirt from the ethanol process being overtuned, although I'd rather they spread the dirt production out among other processes more evenly. Or, realistically, there should be some way to make dirt from mixing crushed rock/sand/clay with compost, which is what we'd see in actual terraforming.
  2. You think this is an opinion based debate? That's just like, your opinion, man. Fundamentally speaking, the practical way to achieve an opinion based debate is to correct factual mistakes until nothing is left to debate but the opinions. Trying to have an opinion based debate without achieving agreement on the facts first is like building on sand instead of pouring a proper foundation. We see the same thing in the hydrogen generation thread, people are debating opinions on whether it is overpowered or unviable, but half the people's opinions are based on a factually wrong calculation of the power potential per kg/s of water converted by electrolysis to hydrogen. ethanol is more complex, with more outputs, but this opens up more potential for factual error, not less. put another way, what does it mean to have an opinion based debate? I would say it fundamentally means that people compare different opinions about the same set of facts. If you have the same opinions, it's not a debate at all, and if you have different opinions about different facts, that's not really a debate either, it's just...logical to have different opinions about different sets of facts. If you say "man, my opinion is that Sammy Hagar is the greatest musician of all time!" and then I try to have an opinion debate with you but choose different facts to discuss, now I'm saying something like "Oh yeah! Well I think that 3 is my favorite number, for sure!" The connection here to a debate about the ethanol cycle in which some of the people aren't aware that simply venting co2 to space is an optional part of the ethanol cycle may not be obvious, but analogically here the ethanol cycle is like Sammy Hagar and the ethanol cycle minus the venting co2 to space option is like the number 3, except it's easier to confuse one pair than the other.
  3. 1 They are 100% likely if you choose to build your base that way. 2. Yes, it's a design decision. 3. There is no 'that spot'. There is 'that large group of things, with room for many things.' 4. 'i'm not a big fan' You'd already made that pretty clear. Klei got rid of features like the fertilizer maker nat gas farms which were just quite imbalanced, but I think a lot of people are big fans of these more complicated processes with many side effects and the ethanol chain is the more balanced successor to the fert maker farms of last year.
  4. Yes, as has been said a million times already, just vent the co2 to space; not pumping to space, but simply making a hole up to space and letting it slowly flow away.
  5. Green power

    My post was meant to be funny, however that wasn't meant to make it confusing. let me restate the issue more concretely: What does green mean, on the asteroid? 1. Natural Gas isn't necessarily a fossil fuel, on the asteroid. Gassy moos create natural gas, so do flatulent dupes, as does feeding slicksters co2 and then cracking the resultant crude into sour gas with heat and then producing natural gas from that. Saying that natural gas, on the asteroid, is absolutely a fossil fuel, is just not correct. You can absolutely make and use significant quantities from currently living creatures. 2. That aside, why isn't burning fossil fuels on the asteroid 'green'? On Earth, burning fossil fuels isn't green mainly because of global warming from co2 in the atmosphere. The asteroid doesn't have an atmosphere. 3. There's also the issue of sustainability, but on the asteroid, fossil fuels are magically sustainable, all of them are. 4. While we're on the subject of their magic sustainability--if they're created by magic and not from time and pressure and heat operating on organic matter underground, perhaps they're not fossil fuels at all, on the asteroid? 5. It's important to remember that 'green', even on earth, isn't a factual statement, but a morally evaluative judgement. Looking at a bowl and saying "the ice cream in this bowl is frozen, therefore it must be near or below 0 celsius" is an observation of fact followed by a logical deduction to make another factual statement about temperature. Looking at a bowl and saying "The ice cream in this bowl is vanilla, therefore it is the most tasty flavor" is an inference based on color, followed by an opinion based evaluative judgment. Talking about what is 'green' on the asteroid is kinda like arguing about which flavor of ice cream Mi Ma prefers--I know she prefers Chocolate Raspberry Truffle, but how do I convince you of that? Unless of course we're talking about the green of Chlorine. The green chlorine which many players use to kill their dupes when their time to die approaches. Now that's Deep Ecology, boys and girls. (Deep Ecology is a school of environmentalism which holds that the only true green approach, on Earth, is to deprioritize human experience over that of other organisms and structures; one of the obvious resultant beliefs held by Deepers is that the population of human beings on Earth should be drastically reduced. It's very real and has been around for decades at least) 6. Perhaps the only truly green way to play ONI is to kill your colony asap. As the quote from War Games goes "the only way to win, is not to play at all" Finally, an explanation as to why these dang dupes are so eager to kill themselves.
  6. Green power

    Natural gas is natural, therefore it's green. Natural Gas which comes from cow farts is absolutely not a fossil fuel, and as such it is green. Also, burning fossil fuel promotes plant growth,and plants are green, therefore fossil fuels are green. I don't know why we care so much about colors when it comes to energy generation in a game, but gassy moo farts come from chlorine originally, and nothing in ONI is greener than chlorine. I'm making a new world where I only use green energy sources, focusing on power production from boiling green polluted water into steam for steam turbines, and natural gas generators, which not only come from green-derived natural gas, but output green polluted water as waste. Petroleum and ethanol generators do output a lot of green polluted water as waste, so they're pretty green, but not as green as natural gas generators.
  7. That'd be like using the power from your Hemi V-8 to power the radiator and water pump that cools your Hemi V-8...i.e. the way actual vehicles in the real world have worked for a century. This is perhaps the most realistic feature in ONI's design.
  8. The sieve is a very confusing building at the moment. Back when it was a water purifier the 40 C output temperature seemed to have been chosen due to the fact that biological purification(probably the most significant part in treating human wastewater) has an important inflection point at 35-40C between mesophilic and thermophilic bacterial growth ranges. Now that the name has been changed to water sieve, the temperature requirement has lost its foundation, as far as I can tell. I take it that if you want buildings to not change the output temperature, that factors such as the bacterial growth ranges above should implemented as intake/input requirements instead, in your opinion? (assuming that they are implemented at all)
  9. I don't agree with your second point; there are many very strong methods of cooling which remain. I would even say that the methods which consist of feeding hot input liquid into a machine which deletes the heat, i.e. petroleum generator feeding in hot petroleum or hot ethanol, feeding in hot water to an oil well,hot crude to a refinery, hot petroleum to a plastic maker, hot petroleum to a rocket, etc; that these methods are fundamentally the same as the old sieve cooling method and the idea that 'variety' has been lost is not very true, the same basic technique is still available but made slightly (appropriately) more difficult to achieve. Dictionaries adapt slowly; words pick up new meanings online. This isn't a case of someone talking about real life online, we're talking about a computer game. Referring to the dictionary definition in this circumstance is like asking an artist to check your load safety factors.
  10. No, they added new options (look up two posts for details), and now they've removed magic heat increasing as well.
  11. You're changing the topic. Someone complained that there were no new options, I pointed out that there were. Your point is better aimed at those who brought up the topic of new options in the first place. Using lumber on conveyor belts as a coolant, using ethanol as a coolant, using ethanol powered generators as a cooling system; are all at least somewhat new, in that lumber and ethanol are new. They're not completely new, in that they're all similar to existing methods, but then again heating pwater and running it into a sieve is kinda similar to heating ethanol and running it into a generator, so if you don't count them as new, then you shouldn't bemoan the loss of the sieve either. edit: apparently the very latest patch a few hours ago nerfed the petroleum generator as a cooling system pretty hard
  12. There are new options and challenges, detailed in this thread, you're just choosing to ignore them. That's your choice, but they still exist.
  13. As an artist myself, I'm crying into my paints right now because of what you just said.
  14. You are awfully critical of Klei for someone so easily offended yourself. No where in his post did he say "you don't know what you are". Let's all try to be a little nicer to each other here...which includes writing politely and also reading politely. Try assuming the best of the person arguing back at you instead of the worst, until they prove otherwise.
  15. No. Well, no, that's not what I meant, but actually yes, you generate the ethanol at 75 C, heat it up even more, run it to the pet generator which you're keeping cool, generate 500 g/s of super cold polluted water, so yes, the overpowered cooling power of the lumber/ethanol cycle does include the generation of 75 C ethanol, that's true. I was originally referring to the overpowered electrical generation of the cycle, which is similar to the water sieve's overpowered cooling power in making many other methods inefficient by comparison, and in being available very early in the tech tree. Before ethanol, petroleum generators were often achieved at a much later cycle count.
  16. Klei can choose whether to appeal to its audience, although at some point they will either go bankrupt or prosper. If you are determined to take offense, it is impossible to avoid making you feel insulted. However, since I have never explicitly assumed that everyone is like me, saying that I am doing so is actually insulting. Please stop.
  17. I think it's coming from people who are assuming a certain attitude from those who disagree with them instead of listening to what they are actually saying.
  18. They removed the OP water sieving cooling, but added in the hilariously overpowered lumber/ethanol cycle. You think this patch decreases freedom, I think it increases freedom, Klei breaks the tie since it's their game. where's the problem with that?
  19. Klei decides, obviously. The new water sieve is not just as 'broken' as it was before. heat creation machines are tuned to be much more powerful than cooling machines are, in the world of ONI. since the tepidizer is ridiculously more powerful than the AETN, the water sieve is much less broken than before, and is only broken on 1 of the nine asteroids.
  20. Starting water?

    Everyone that thinks Arboria is actually the hardest asteroid now: Arboria can't be anywhere near the hardest of the asteroids now, because it's for sure at the least the easiest of the 4 asteroids that replace the old starter biome with the new forest biome. E.g. Aridia is basically just a much hotter Arboria.
  21. yes, those types of comments are regrettably common here, usually after something game unbalancing gets nerfed.
  22. Yes, that's why I said Klei made their game the way they did and that's fine. As far as rockets go, a small group of ten dupes on an asteroid regularly throwing off giant rockets to other planets is already unrealistic. Realistic space games which involve massive group efforts like that generally are more of a simcity type of simulation, ONI went with the cartoonish approach. Same thing with plants, farmers don't actually only plant a few plants per person and expect to sustain life, you're arguing these minor points when there are major points lying fallow, because we aren't actually talking about realism in a serious way here. Again, we aren't actually suggesting Klei make changes to the game to make it more realistic here, so you're arguing against a ghost viewpoint here.
  23. "Keep in mind dupes breathe FAR more oxygen then an IRL human (humans breathe out a lot of the oxygen they breathe in), so the values have to be adjusted for balanceSo the electrolysis being very efficient is kind of required." That's a strange take on it lol. First off, dupes consume something like 10,000 times more oxygen than humans, compared to that massive discrepancy humans' imperfect absorption of oxygen is a rounding error. Second , saying electrolysis's efficiency in ONI is 'required' is not true, they could have simply had dupes breathe a reasonable amount of oxygen in the first place, quite easily. "My point is, these conversations are a huge rabbit hole, because then you realise you would have to change basically every single tuning value in the game to make it 'realistic'. Never really going to happen." They're definitely a huge rabbit hole, but other games are much more realistic. changing every tuning value in the game is not unreasonable, it's just that Klei made the game the way they want and that's the way it is. However, remember that this particular conversation is not really mostly about making ONI more realistic, this particular subthread is mainly just some guys asking some questions about real things that also occur in ONI, and then some related jokes about unrealistic things in ONI. Exchanges of jokes are almost by definition journeys down a rabbit hole