Module 3 Combinations

[Alaskan Glitch]

I decided to run the numbers on Speed, Efficiency, and Productivity modules to determine which were benificial and which were detrimental. I only used Module 3s, and I included every possible combination, except for all empty. If the energy consumption costs plus the pollution increase exceeded the speed or productivity gained, then it was not a good combination. Surprisingly, there are very few good combinations.

In structures that accept two modules, of which there are six possible combinations (excluding all empty), there was only one choice:

• 1 Speed Module 3, and 1 Efficiency Module 3.

You get a 70% boost in speed and no additional cost in energy. Yes, you could use 2 Efficiency Module 3s, but you only get a maximum reduction of -80%, not the -100% you should get for 2 Efficiency Module 3s. In all the other combinations the disadvantages outweigh the advantages.

In structures that accept three modules, of which there are 10 possible combinations (excluding all empty), there were only two choices:

• 2 Speed Module 3s, and 1 Efficiency Module 3; or
  
• 1 Speed Module 3, and 2 Efficiency Module 3s.

You get a 140% speed increase with only a 50% increase in energy costs with the first option, or a 70% speed increase with a 50% reduction in energy costs with the second option. Both are of equal value.

In structures that accept four modules, of which there are 15 possible combinations (excluding all empty), there were three or possibly four choices:

• 2 Speed Module 3s, and 2 Efficiency Module 3s; or
  
• 1 Speed Module 3, 2 Efficiency Module 3s, and 1 Productivity Module 3; or
  
• 3 Efficiency Module 3s, and 1 Productivity Module 3; or
  
• 4 Speed Module 3s.

The first option gives you a 140% speed increase without increasing your energy consumption. The second option consumes 30% more energy, and increases pollution by 10%, but also increases speed by 55% and production by 10%. The third option reduces the speed by 15%, and increases pollution by 10%, but it also increases productivity by 10% and cuts your energy consumption by 70%. The last option is if you want a 280% speed increase in a structure and are willing to pay the 200% energy costs, then more power to you (pun intended) because you will need it.

In every other possible combination, except for those listed above, the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. You will also note that in structures that allow two or three Modules there are no "good" Productivity combinations. You can only offset the disadvantages of a Productivity Module if you have structures that allow four Modules.

When you start using Beacons you will wish you had conserved more energy early on.

[Teh Freek]

Your math assumes an abundance of resources and a scarcity of energy. Things are very different once either of those is not true. Productivity modules become incredibly important and there are a few buildings that you absolutely want to fill with them (notably the silo, labs, and purple and yellow science).

[AlexMBrennan]

In every other possible combination, except for those listed above, the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. You will also note that in structures that allow two or three Modules there are no "good" Productivity combinations

I'll take the higher one time setup cost (plop down a few extra solar panels) if I can generate 40% free stuff for all eternity.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by AlexMBrennan:

In every other possible combination, except for those listed above, the disadvantages outweighed the advantages. You will also note that in structures that allow two or three Modules there are no "good" Productivity combinations

I'll take the higher one time setup cost (plop down a few extra solar panels) if I can generate 40% free stuff for all eternity.

You will quickly come to regret that as soon as you start using Beacons. You may find that several nuclear reactors are insufficient for your power consumption needs.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by Teh Freek:

Your math assumes an abundance of resources and a scarcity of energy. Things are very different once either of those is not true. Productivity modules become incredibly important and there are a few buildings that you absolutely want to fill with them (notably the silo, labs, and purple and yellow science).

Actually, I was expecting an over-abundance of energy, and resources have nothing to do with my calculations. What prompted this whole endeavor was when I began deploying Beacons using Speed Module 3s. Soon I found that not even 3GWatts of Steam Generators and 1.5 GWatts of Solar Power was sufficient to keep things running. Prior to deploying Beacons I was barely consuming 25% of that power. After delopying the Beacons, my energy production was maxed out and structures were still only getting one third the power they required.

So being as energy efficient as possible before deploying Beacons seems like a really good idea.

[Hedning]

The best option is 4 productivity modules with at least 1-2 beacons using speed modules.

Using max productivity modules is the best and only way to get resources from energy. The first beacon add 0.625 to the 0.5 speed of the asembler, which is a must since that more than doubles its speed. The second beacon is also almost a must since that increases the speed from 1.125 to 1.75 or by 56%. Pretty massive too.

It is not a good idea to use energy efficiency before beacons because then when you move over to using productivity modules you'll get a huge increase in energy need all at once. Better to slowly get used to higher need.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by Hedning:

The best option is 4 productivity modules with at least 1-2 beacons using speed modules.

Using max productivity modules is the best and only way to get resources from energy. The first beacon add 0.625 to the 0.5 speed of the asembler, which is a must since that more than doubles its speed. The second beacon is also almost a must since that increases the speed from 1.125 to 1.75 or by 56%. Pretty massive too.

It is not a good idea to use energy efficiency before beacons because then when you move over to using productivity modules you'll get a huge increase in energy need all at once. Better to slowly get used to higher need.

Using Speed Modules with Beacons is a given, and you are right about productivity. There is no other way to obtain resources through energy except through the Productivity Modules, but you need to be prepared to pay a very heavy energy price tag.

If you are already late-game and have an abundance of energy at your disposal, then by all means use Speed Modules in Beacons and Productivity Modules in your resource structures. But unless you have a couple of Nuclear Reactors generating power that you can spare, I would advise caution. Each of those Beacons consume 480 kW on their own, without the Modules. Double that with the Speed Module 3s.

[Hedning]

If you have enough resources to mass produce level 3 modules you have enough production to expand power production to keep the lights on. Again, unless you suddenly move from efficiency to productivity.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by Hedning:

If you have enough resources to mass produce level 3 modules you have enough production to expand power production to keep the lights on. Again, unless you suddenly move from efficiency to productivity.

That was the goal of this exercise. To be efficient with the use of Module 3s, using them in combinations that provide only benificial results. One Productivity Module 3 consumes 80% more energy, slows production by 15%, and produces 10% more pollution, while only producing 10% more resources. The disadvantages far outweigh the advantages by itself, however, with additional Module 3s (such as Speed Module 3s in Beacons surrounding the resource structure) those disadvantages can be either mitigated or offset completely.

You do not really get free resources using energy using a Productivity Module UNLESS you offset those disadvantages. By itself one Productivity Module 3 will result in a net loss of 6.5% due to productivity being slowed by 15%. The 10% gain in productivity does not fully offset the delayed productivity. Then add to that an 80% increase in energy and a 10% increase in pollution. Productivity Modules should not be used at all, unless you can offset those disadvantages to a large degree.

[AlexMBrennan]

You may find that several nuclear reactors are insufficient

I hadn't realized that there is a hard coded limit of "several" nuclear reactors in the game.

By itself one Productivity Module 3 will result in a net loss of 6.5% due to productivity being slowed by 15%

So just place down twice as many assemblers - again, a one off setup cost. Infinity > any finite setup cost.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by AlexMBrennan:

You may find that several nuclear reactors are insufficient

I hadn't realized that there is a hard coded limit of "several" nuclear reactors in the game.

By itself one Productivity Module 3 will result in a net loss of 6.5% due to productivity being slowed by 15%

So just place down twice as many assemblers - again, a one off setup cost. Infinity > any finite setup cost.

Adding more assemblers just compounds the disadvantages. You have to mitigate or offset those disadvantages by either using Beacons with Speed Modules or by using something other than all Productivity Module 3s in your assemblers. If you use only Productivity Module 3s in your assemblers, and do not offset the disadvantages with Beacons, then you are not gaining anything. You are actually losing productivity, and spending a lot of energy and creating a lot of pollution to do it.

With four Productivity Module 3s you are delaying productivity by 60%. Which means that for a normal assember to produce 100 units in a given time period, it now only produces 40. However, it now has an increase of 40% in productivity, resulting in 16 additional units in that given time period. So now you are producing 56 units in the same space of time that it took you to produce 100 units, only now you've increased the pollution of that assembler by 40% and increased the cost in energy by 320%. Where exactly is the advantage again?

With Speed Module 3s in Beacons that surround your assemblers it can mitigate, or even completely offset that 60% delay caused by using four Productivity Module 3s. Only then can you actually get resources by expending energy.

[Hedning]

First of all comparing percentages is not relevant, because the value of 10% energy is not the same as the value of 10% extra product.

Without beacons I wouldn't use 4 productivity modules simply because the cost in modules is so high and every doubling of the number of assemblers means you need to double the modules too. That's where the price is. In the modules themselves. It's not in the assemblers, not the infrastructure (whether robot or belts), and not even in the power. If you are just concerned about increasing production you should not place modules in the assemblers, just leave them empty and build more. The only hindrance to this is logistics since the blueprint gets very large very quickly with no modules.

You want to reach max allowed prod3 modules per production building. At first because it is resources from energy, but later also because productivity adds multiplicative to speed, making them not even produce much slower than putting in 4 extra speed modules instead (88% with 8 beacons). However at first having 4 prod3 modules is prohibitively expensive in anything but the very most expensive recipes, like for the rocket parts and science labs. With only 1 beacon hitting 8 assemblers you cut the total number of modules required to do the same job from 72 modules down to 32. That's the main purpose of beacons imo (at least in the mid game), to cut down the total number of modules required to do the same job.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by Hedning:

First of all comparing percentages is not relevant, because the value of 10% energy is not the same as the value of 10% extra product.

Without beacons I wouldn't use 4 productivity modules simply because the cost in modules is so high and every doubling of the number of assemblers means you need to double the modules too. That's where the price is. In the modules themselves. It's not in the assemblers, not the infrastructure (whether robot or belts), and not even in the power. If you are just concerned about increasing production you should not place modules in the assemblers, just leave them empty and build more. The only hindrance to this is logistics since the blueprint gets very large very quickly with no modules.

You want to reach max allowed prod3 modules per production building. At first because it is resources from energy, but later also because productivity adds multiplicative to speed, making them not even produce much slower than putting in 4 extra speed modules instead (88% with 8 beacons). However at first having 4 prod3 modules is prohibitively expensive in anything but the very most expensive recipes, like for the rocket parts and science labs. With only 1 beacon hitting 8 assemblers you cut the total number of modules required to do the same job from 72 modules down to 32. That's the main purpose of beacons imo (at least in the mid game), to cut down the total number of modules required to do the same job.

Comparing percentages is very relevant. How else are you going to offset a percentage of delay without increasing the percentage speed by the same percentage or more? It all works together. A percentage increase in speed directly translates to a percentage increase in production. If your assembler produced 100 units in a given time period, then increasing the speed of that assembler will yield an increase in production. What did you think was being increased with speed, if not production?

I agree with your assessment of the purpose of Beacons. They are to offset the disadvantages of using other Module 3s in assemblers - particularly Productivity Module 3s. With lots of Beacons (using Speed Module 3s of course) you can significantly increase productivity, but at a cost in the form of energy.

[Hedning]

Maybe I should have been more clear. You can offset slower production by building more assemblers and you can offset higher energy cost by building more power production. It is not a fair comparison just comparing the percentages of the modules themselves without taking the greater factory into consideration.

You were pretty much saying that if something cost 15% or even 50% speed for 10% productivity then it is not worth it because 50>10. That's what I objected to, because that 50% speed is worth less than 10% productivity. ie it is much easier to just build more assemblers than it is sourcing more ore fields. And also when increasing productivity of a high-end product, such as blue chips, you may need more blue chip assemblers to keep items/minute the same, but since you have increased productivity you need fewer assemblers all the way down the line. Fewer green, fewer red and even fewer refineries. That well compensates even for the small cost of the extra assemblers required fro the blue chips.

[Alaskan Glitch]

Originally posted by Hedning:

Maybe I should have been more clear. You can offset slower production by building more assemblers and you can offset higher energy cost by building more power production. It is not a fair comparison just comparing the percentages of the modules themselves without taking the greater factory into consideration.

You were pretty much saying that if something cost 15% speed for 10% productivity then it is not worth it because 15>10. That's what I objected to, because that 15% speed is worth less than 10% productivity. ie it is much easier to just build more assemblers than it is sourcing more ore fields. And also when increasing productivity of a high-end product, such as blue chips, you may need more blue chip assemblers to keep items/minute the same, but since you have increased productivity you need fewer assemblers all the way down the line. Fewer green, fewer red and even fewer refineries. That well compensates even for the small cost of the extra assemblers required fro the blue chips.

You are right, that is exactly what I am saying in the end. A 10% increase in productivity does not fulling offset a 15% delay in productivity. You will actually only produce 93.5% of what you have produced previously, before using a Productivity Module 3. Adding more assemblers will not help if you also intend to put Productivity Modules in them as well. You are just making it even worse.

If you offset that delay with Speed Module 3s, then you can actually get some advantage in productivity, but only by using Speed Modules. If you use Efficiency Modules you will still have that delay in production, but it will just cost you less energy. So Speed Modules in Beacons are absolutely essential if you are going to offset the delay in productivity caused by Productivity Modules, not adding more assemblers.

As you pointed out, with 8 Beacons you can increase the speed by 88%, which would not only completely offset the 60% delay the Productivity Module 3s gave you, it would increase your speed by an additional 22%, and increase your productivity by 40%. Granted, you are now paying (480 kW x 8 x 3.5) 13.44 Mega Watts for those 8 Beacons with Speed Module 3s, and you are also producing 40% more pollution, but at least you are getting more resources by only expending energy. Woohoo!

[linux ISO collector]

This dude is extremely biased against productivity modules, mostly because he doesn't understand how they work well.

Productivity modules stack multiplicatively, unlike the other two types which stack additively. If I have a production chain like green circuits -> red circuits -> blue circuits, and in every step I save up 40% of production materials, then in the next level I save 1.4 times 1.4 of materials and so on. When you combine this with speed beacons, you end up saving energy because you need to run less machines to produce the raw materials, and less machines to produce the same amount of stuff. Saving materials also saves up on the machines needed to produce them.