Improve mass produced goods law

[Blanch Warren]

Currently there is no benefit to passing Mass produced goods over durable goods unless you just can't, due to partisanship.

Although relatively expensive to switch in terms of resource requirements, when my resources are better, I would be more likely to switch to it if it decreased work requirements, and added profit. At least some minor profit, I would be less likely to do it just for decreased work requirements - if I am switching, I probably already have good resources, but could probably still use some money.

Game logic and real world logic are fairly self explanatory. In any case, durable goods would be good for early game (and possibly later with any resource shortages on higher difficulty). Mass produced goods would be good mid game (early game moreso if you are really focused and able to consume material resources).

This will give an credence to the machinists expansionism that they are supposed to have, by flavor. If there isn't one already there (I haven't exhausted this one), an even more capitalist law option could be given for capitalistic factions (machinists could probably still like it maybe not as much, ice bloods might like it but not as much, technocrats might not like it).

It probably shouldn't have a malus added to it. Like I said, it's already relatively expensive, and not currently great by comparison.

[Harris]

I find myself never producing goods in the early game. Goods are not an immediate concern as opposed to heat and food, factories are too much of an investment early on, and the tiny intrinsic output of industrial districts is needed for prefabs early on.

For me, mass produced goods is a useless law, only good as a bargaining chip to make my machinists happy perhaps. Durable goods, however, is universally good - even if I don't produce any goods and get them through Levelling, it leads to them consumed at a slower rate, which is always a good thing.

Yes, I actually agreed with Blanch Warren for once

[adrien_perleflamme]

You already have an event that lets you increase your material consumption to produce prostheses so that you increase your % of active population (more workforce available). And mass producing already increases your income as long as you're producing goods.

I'd say mass producing is intended for when you are producing lots of goods, so that you can produce even more of it and need even less of crime reduction and heatstamp production from other sources. The additional event lets you get even more workforce on top of requiring less workforce for your production of goods, so it's probably intended for small, efficient populations where you don't want more than one or two industrial districts using. Personally, I'd use the additional workforce for heat actuators or the like.

To me, the problem is workforce rarely is a problem to find and how heat works incentivizes you to build lots of districts anyway to profit from heat synergy bonuses, notably between your logistic / industrial / extraction districts and your housing / food districts.

[Blanch Warren]

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

You already have an event that lets you increase your material consumption to produce prostheses so that you increase your % of active population (more workforce available).

I don't have that event, but I am less concerned about workforce anyway - in the current lowest difficulty game I am playing.

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

And mass producing already increases your income as long as you're producing goods.

*Producing goods in general* increases your income up to the point of fulflliment. The only thing switching from durable goods to mass produced goods does is increase demand. But filling that extra demand will not increase income any more than if you had simply kept durable goods. It's just a less efficient alternative to durable goods.

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

I'd say mass producing is intended for when you are producing lots of goods, so that you can produce even more of it and need even less of crime reduction and heatstamp production from other sources.

Income is increased up to demand fulfillment. Demand fulfillment is reached more easily with durable goods. Being over demand doesn't do anything. Fulfilling the extra demand that exists under mass produced goods doesn't do anything. The only thing the law does is that it is less efficient than durable goods.

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

To me, the problem is workforce rarely is a problem to find and how heat works incentivizes you to build lots of districts anyway to profit from heat synergy bonuses, notably between your logistic / industrial / extraction districts and your housing / food districts.

I don't really care if you never have a workforce shortage. I only proposed it as a minor bonus. It wouldn't be enough of a reason to switch, it would just make it hurt less when you have to fulfill extra demand.

[adrien_perleflamme]

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

I'd say mass producing is intended for when you are producing lots of goods, so that you can produce even more of it and need even less of crime reduction and heatstamp production from other sources.

Income is increased up to demand fulfillment. Demand fulfillment is reached more easily with durable goods. Being over demand doesn't do anything. Fulfilling the extra demand that exists under mass produced goods doesn't do anything. The only thing the law does is that it is less efficient than durable goods.

It's actually more efficient when you have low global production efficiency (equal pay, weather adjusted shifts and such), because it easily counteracts your decreased production efficiency so that you consume less material, need less districts and so less heat as well as less workforce. But it's always less efficient if you have high production efficiency, because it seems it doesn't compound with production efficiency but is an additive parameter.

[Blanch Warren]

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

It's actually more efficient when you have low global production efficiency (equal pay, weather adjusted shifts and such).

I don't have equal pay. Weather adjusted shifts is practical for reducing heat demand. Equal pay is late game utopianism, it decreases money and increases trust or whatever.

Durable goods decreases goods demand. Mass produced goods doesn't. If you switch from durable to mass, you have more demand, and the slight increase in production efficiency doesn't make up for it.

Unless you eat, breathe and ♥♥♥♥ materials, that you just don't care about it, and only care about a slight efficiency bonus to other things, you just have a higher demand to fill. It requires an order of higher demand to fill.

*I* don't have as much of a problem reducing heat, that a slight global efficiency bonus would be worth it. I focus on reducing heat demands. The only thing that mass produced goods does *for me* is increase demand; the increase of efficiency elsewhere is negligible.

[Harris]

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

workforce rarely is a problem to find

This is true, but this is rather a criticism of Progress being inferior simply from game design standpoint. It's like saying outposts are better because colonies really eat into your fps. While true, it's beside the point.

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

Equal pay is late game utopianism, it decreases money and increases trust or whatever.

Equal pay is good if you're rushing Equality capstone. Mind that as soon as you hit state-run alcohol shops you start making more money than all the social laws combined cost you.

If you spam too many Equality buildings they might cripple your heatstamps income, but that's where Levelling comes in - trivializing both money and goods and making this discussion purely academic.

Adaptation + Equality is so powerful that it's not even close. Tradition is whatever, but recovery hospitals are amazing and you want to avoid tension from spamming them, and frostland deportation is a neat albeit somewhat weak buff to your outposts.

The balance issue way I see it right now is it's just too easy to get more population right now for things like active workforce percentage or workforce reduction to ever matter. I'd rather have more people and satisfy their needs by not satisfying them, than have automated workforce factories and have to deal with the squalor.

[adrien_perleflamme]

Mass produced foods doesn't decrease goods demand, but increases goods production, for the same inputs. I think that's what you missed: you consume less material. Your industrial districts don't consume more material with increased productivity. Only your extraction districts increase resource depletion speed with increased productivity.

I get it, you are in a position where you have high production efficiency and no problem with heat or workforce. Then, some laws, including mass produced goods, are not for your situation. Not all laws are for all situations.

[SoloQ]

Some of the laws have effects that occur later on and depend on your choices. Like unions. I haven't used that particular law to see what happens.
A lot of it you won't see in the story because I'm only starting to see them happen around week 600 which is when I finished the story.

[adrien_perleflamme]

Originally posted by SoloQ:

Some of the laws have effects that occur later on and depend on your choices. Like unions. I haven't used that particular law to see what happens.
A lot of it you won't see in the story because I'm only starting to see them happen around week 600 which is when I finished the story.

I think latest patch reduced time before some law-based events happen. Also, it made some laws have an impact on central districts on top of other districts (maybe mass produced goods are impacted, but I haven't checked yet).

For mass produced goods, the event lets you choose to increase material consumption to produce prostheses so that you increase active population (narratively speaking, your cripples and elderly become productive for longer before becoming unproductive), thus available workforce. I generally don't find it very interesting, but I guess it can be useful under some circumstances.

[Blanch Warren]

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

Mass produced foods doesn't decrease goods demand, but increases goods production, for the same inputs.

As I've explained repeatedly: No. Mass produced goods does not have the same output. It might look that way on paper, but it isn't the case. I tested it. Why repeat a lie ad nauseam?

Sure, maybe it works in some theoretical scenario where you only pick ♥♥♥♥ laws and your production efficiency is incredibly ♥♥♥♥.

[adrien_perleflamme]

I tested it on Captain's difficulty. It's 25% percents of reduced consumption for Durable goods and 25% of increased production for mass produced goods. And yes, increased productivity for goods means you create more goods for the same inputs of material, workforce and such.

That means you have a benefit when you have Mass produced goods and are producing enough goods for your consumption, because you can then have a surplus that you can use in worst times (whiteouts and such) by running your industrial districts with lower workforce and use the population for other purposes (like heat).

Unless you're using some high production increases and no decreases (like weather adjusted shifts), it is rather profitable. And as said by Harris, if you choose equality, you end up not caring about heatstamps anyway. Then, goods are only here to easily solve most of crime problems.

So, yeah, I agree it probably means mass produced goods doesn't fit your play style. Like some people dislike playing specific characters in fighting games.

[Blanch Warren]

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

And as said by Harris, if you choose equality, you end up not caring about heatstamps anyway.

Well, I didn't. I'm not comparing it against "if I chose equality and don't care about heat stamps". When I have more heat stamps, then I care less about heat stamps and might implement other things. Not based on "if I chose equality."

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

Unless you're using some high production increases and no decreases (like weather adjusted shifts).

I was running with little decreases. I institute decreases later, when I can afford them. Weather adjusted shifts isn't a great example of a decrease. It depends what the weather is. Equal pay is a decrease. You get trust out of it. Might come in handy, but it's got a malus if you aren't already well set up.

I'm vaguely told you get something out of "hitting the equality cap".

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

So, yeah, I agree it probably means mass produced goods doesn't fit your play style. Like some people dislike playing specific characters in fighting games.

Well then why are you contradicting me? I didn't say it doesn't do anything if your economy is Cuba. I complained that it should be more advantageous to switch to for someone running a GOOD economy. even if it has some negatives.

Why would I be comparing against a ♥♥♥♥ economy? I didn't say I was bleeding technocrat.

[adrien_perleflamme]

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

Unless you're using some high production increases and no decreases (like weather adjusted shifts).

I was running with little decreases. I institute decreases later, when I can afford them. Weather adjusted shifts isn't a great example of a decrease. It depends what the weather is. Equal pay is a decrease. You get trust out of it. Might come in handy, but it's got a malus if you aren't already well set up.

I'm vaguely told you get something out of "hitting the equality cap".

I don't understand. Weather adjusted shifts impact productivity regardless of current weather. It's a 10% hit to productivity, regardless of weather.

Yes, you get a nice bonus for each full zeitgeist you commit to. Regarding equality... let's say nationalization has consequences.

I'd suggest you to test each of them with a save, so that you can see all the options you have at your disposal. Maybe you're at one or two laws/buildings of getting consequences and game play you'd enjoy. Personally, I was surprised by some zeitgeists and their consequences (like when dying in Utopia builder and such). The game can be deeper than it seems at first.

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

So, yeah, I agree it probably means mass produced goods doesn't fit your play style. Like some people dislike playing specific characters in fighting games.

Well then why are you contradicting me? I didn't say it doesn't do anything if your economy is Cuba. I complained that it should be more advantageous to switch to for someone running a GOOD economy. even if it has some negatives.

Why would I be comparing against a ♥♥♥♥ economy? I didn't say I was bleeding technocrat.

Because you can have a good economy without having your play style. It's only your play style that is incompatible with Mass produced goods.

Frankly, if Mass produced goods becomes any better than it is now, I'd see no reason to ever use Durable goods. Given I generally plan a Logistic district very early and I generally put one or two Industrial district(s) next to it for heat synergies, it's easy to switch between goods and prefabs to easily get heatstamps and prefabs. And as such, Durable goods is equivalent to Mass produced goods in my play style until I get more industrial districts, where Durable goods becomes useless (unless I plan very high efficiency, like stimulants and such, but I consider it makes the game too easy for me to rely on lots of stimulants anyway).

[Blanch Warren]

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

I don't understand. Weather adjusted shifts impact productivity regardless of current weather. It's a 10% hit to productivity, regardless of weather.

Obviously, but it's a lot more expensive not to adjust to the weather. The other option may be better in good weather.

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

Because you can have a good economy without having your play style. It's only your play style that is incompatible with Mass produced goods.

That is a counter-intuitive way to design a game. I should be able to benefit from mass produced against durable goods circumstantially without having unlocked some kind of unknown end-bonus.

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

Frankly, if Mass produced goods becomes any better than it is now, I'd see no reason to ever use Durable goods... Durable goods is equivalent to Mass produced goods in my play style until I get more industrial districts

I would use it for what it does: it makes better use of scarce resources. When you have resources, it still works. If I jump off from durable to mass produced, thinking I can afford it - I get no benefit from it.

It might be the case that it becomes better when you have more industrial districts. I've only played 85 hours, I don't tend to stick the game out after mistakes become evident. In my view, it should have bonuses/maluses that function at the micro level and not just the macro. Or as you say, it will be good end game, while durable becomes more useless.

If you are correct, I don't consider it preferable for mass produced goods to be dominantly preferable emergently, with durable goods becoming more useless over time. It's more only linearly useful in that sense. I want advantages that could make either useful at different times of the game.

[adrien_perleflamme]

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

Originally posted by adrien_perleflamme:

I don't understand. Weather adjusted shifts impact productivity regardless of current weather. It's a 10% hit to productivity, regardless of weather.

Obviously, but it's a lot more expensive not to adjust to the weather. The other option may be better in good weather.

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

Because you can have a good economy without having your play style. It's only your play style that is incompatible with Mass produced goods.

That is a counter-intuitive way to design a game. I should be able to benefit from mass produced against durable goods circumstantially without having unlocked some kind of unknown end-bonus.

Originally posted by Blanch Warren:

Frankly, if Mass produced goods becomes any better than it is now, I'd see no reason to ever use Durable goods... Durable goods is equivalent to Mass produced goods in my play style until I get more industrial districts

I would use it for what it does: it makes better use of scarce resources. When you have resources, it still works. If I jump off from durable to mass produced, thinking I can afford it - I get no benefit from it.

It might be the case that it becomes better when you have more industrial districts. I've only played 85 hours, I don't tend to stick the game out after mistakes become evident. In my view, it should have bonuses/maluses that function at the micro level and not just the macro. Or as you say, it will be good end game, while durable becomes more useless.

If you are correct, I don't consider it preferable for mass produced goods to be dominantly preferable emergently, with durable goods becoming more useless over time. It's more only linearly useful in that sense. I want advantages that could make either useful at different times of the game.

Now I think I see what you mean. You want each law to have pros and cons that depend on circumstances during gameplay rather than in conjunction with other laws and buildings making some combinations disadvantageous. Hm, I'm not sure that's what devs were looking for with all their zeitgeist principles.