Linear over/underclocking power usage

[Wood_[OBC]]

Anyone else looking forward to adding tons of power plants to accommodate extra power requirements of hundreds of machines you have currently underclocked? (once linear underclocking comes online)

[umop-apisdn]

Is there a definitive answer as to whether the change they were considering has been decidedly decided, one way or another?

I will be disappointed if they do remove the polynomial power consumption equation, but I haven't seen anything indicating that they have chosen whether or not to do so.

If they want to make overclocking linear, I couldn't care less... but underclocking is my jam.

[Wolfgang]

Here my personal opinion on (specifically) the considered change of underclocking:
I personally think that the argument Snutt made (underclock it to 1% and just build 100 of them) is though a bit too short (but if there is a more detailed story of that which didn't fit into the video then I would really like to hear it). Let's go through it:
Let's assume we want to make Iron plates from Ingots. Normally we need one Constructor for it, which at 100% uses 4MW, to get out Iron plates. Belt for the input, select the recipe, belt for the output, done.
Now let's do the same but this time at 1%. Yes, you need less energy than with one at 100% but you need 100x the resources (just for the Constructors alone). But you also need to use quite some splitters and a lot of belts to feed the correct amount into each Constuctor. We also need more than 100x the space for the setup due to the beltwork. And at the end we need a lot of time to set it all up. What did we gain from that? Not much, maybe 3MW less energy usage. So not that much. Time to go bigger.
Assuming we want a pretty significant energy usage reduction we take a look at the three machines that use the most energy: Manufacturer, Blender and the Particle Accelerator.
All of these three are very big and need resources that when building them for the first time aren't that easy to come by. You might save yourself a lot of energy but you need much more resources, a ton of space and a lot of belt- and pipework (at least for the Blender) for all the inputs. You very likely will get a mess and you will spend a ton of time and resources on it. Sure the energy reduction is significant but the space, materials and time spend on doing this is massive.
Which begs the question: Who would do this?
Well, I highly doubt that any first time players would do something from the start. At least not in that fashion. They will underclock to match the required material with the input they have and thus the non-linear energy reduction is a nice bonus.
Those who will do it are the long time players who already played throught the game at least once or twice or more. They already saw pretty much everything and have produced pretty much everything. For them having a "1% Factory" is just a challenge to keep the game interesting. And they either do it on their existing save or on a new one. But for those on an existing save it won't really matter as they already have nuclear power and thus way more energy than they will ever need.
So I think that making the underclocking linear is pretty much removing another way to play the game from said game. And it hits those who already played through it.
I personally would more welcome making over- and underclocking of the power generators linear. In order to have twice the fuel consumption and energy output I need to overclock my fuel generators to 246.2288% while having a target energy output value that just won't be met and just causes confusion if you don't know about the details.

[umop-apisdn]

Originally posted by Wolfgang:

Now let's do the same but this time at 1%. Yes, you need less energy than with one at 100% but you need 100x the resources (just for the Constructors alone). But you also need to use quite some splitters and a lot of belts to feed the correct amount into each Constuctor. We also need more than 100x the space for the setup due to the beltwork. And at the end we need a lot of time to set it all up. What did we gain from that? Not much, maybe 3MW less energy usage. So not that much.

A fair point; you only saved 10% of a biomass burner's power output with that constructor.
However, if you couple it with a miner at 50% clock speed because it's on a pure node and your Mk.1 belts can't push any faster than 60 items per minute anyway, and additional smelters and constructors instead of 1 of each... you can easily run an entire full-speed production line for the same power cost as that single constructor you mentioned.

I know, I've done it. The feeling I got when I completed my factory, which generates every product available without building the space elevator with only the pair of biomass burners installed in the HUB was... ahem... quite Satisfactory.

Also, what does it matter that it takes a hundred (or even a thousand) times the resources? Resources are infinite. Don't have enough? Go pour a cup of tea/coffee, come back to your PC, and now you have hundreds more resources. For that matter, go build stuff with what's in your inventory and come back when you run out of stuff to... pick up more stuff.

Originally posted by Wolfgang:

I personally would more welcome making over- and underclocking of the power generators linear. In order to have twice the fuel consumption and energy output I need to overclock my fuel generators to 246.2288% while having a target energy output value that just won't be met and just causes confusion if you don't know about the details.

Now this I agree with. Production clock speeds make sense (ie, work properly) within the system, even if the power:work ratio is more "fun and funky" than "based on science". Power generators' over/under clocking is just... weird. There's no fuel:power ratio benefit or drawback at all, overclocking just doesn't provide as much "oomph" as it should. "Clock the generator to 246.2288% clock speed to produce double the power for double the fuel requirement" doesn't really make any sense at all.

I could totally get behind a fix for the power generation clock speeds, if it didn't kill the clock speed system that's currently in place on resource extractors (miners, etc) and production machines (smelters, constructors, et al).

[Shahadem]

The tiny number of players who think that this underclocking nonsense we have now adds depth to the game are exactly the group that needs to be ignored imo.

You are the reason why we can't have nice things (such as finally having linear overclocking something I have wanted from day 1).

[Tenebris]

Originally posted by Wood_OBC:

Actually, some fluffy broken hearted snowflake millennial got his feeling hurt after trying to get his under-educated brain wrapped around the exponential power requirements currently enjoyed in game. Now, the developers have to re-write millions of lines of code to satiate this POS that wants a game designed "his" way... go back to factorio. Leave the "complexities" that are currently enjoyed by over 3 million players, right the f alone. Cheers!

Ohhhhhh, look out everyone, we got a badass here, calling everyone he disagrees with a snowflake millennial.

Love the "cheers" at the end btw, as if being polite at the end balances out the vitriol at the beginning (hint: it doesn't).

I don't even want to insult you back. I simply pity you, you sad, small man.

[Bookslayer10]

Originally posted by Tenebris:

Originally posted by Wood_OBC:

Actually, some fluffy broken hearted snowflake millennial got his feeling hurt after trying to get his under-educated brain wrapped around the exponential power requirements currently enjoyed in game. Now, the developers have to re-write millions of lines of code to satiate this POS that wants a game designed "his" way... go back to factorio. Leave the "complexities" that are currently enjoyed by over 3 million players, right the f alone. Cheers!

Ohhhhhh, look out everyone, we got a badass here, calling everyone he disagrees with a snowflake millennial.

Love the "cheers" at the end btw, as if being polite at the end balances out the vitriol at the beginning (hint: it doesn't).

I don't even want to insult you back. I simply pity you, you sad, small man.

Insulting people isn't productive, but Wood is right that just because a mechanic is hard for new players to understand or that people don't want to do math in a game, the mechanic should be completely replaced by a simpler option.

Maybe there are other arguments that are better, for both sides.

[Wolfgang]

Originally posted by Bookslayer10:

Originally posted by Tenebris:

Ohhhhhh, look out everyone, we got a badass here, calling everyone he disagrees with a snowflake millennial.

Love the "cheers" at the end btw, as if being polite at the end balances out the vitriol at the beginning (hint: it doesn't).

I don't even want to insult you back. I simply pity you, you sad, small man.

Insulting people isn't productive, but Wood is right that just because a mechanic is hard for new players to understand or that people don't want to do math in a game, the mechanic should be completely replaced by a simpler option.

Maybe there are other arguments that are better, for both sides.

Personally I am either for adjusting the exponent (not making it linear) or to make it case sensitive (i.e. linear from 0-50%, exponential from 50-100%, linear from 100-150% and exponential >150%). I am however against making it fully linear as then there is simply no drawback to overclocking your machine to the max. What I am for is that slight overclocking doesn't need to have a drawback which is why I personally prefer the case sensitive method.

[Wood_[OBC]]

Originally posted by Shahadem:

The tiny number of players who think that this underclocking nonsense we have now adds depth to the game are exactly the group that needs to be ignored imo.

You are the reason why we can't have nice things (such as finally having linear overclocking something I have wanted from day 1).

It appears that insulting people is OK around here - I was merely following the "lead".

Side note: "don't even want to insult you back. I simply pity you, you sad, small man." is an insult... LMAO!

The folks who seek change, are completely ignorant of the monumental task involved. It is not a toggle switch. The devs have worked their asses off to provide a game that is significantly more immersive than the others.

These people are the ones telling their Mom that the gravy could use a little more salt - not bothering to thank her for her tireless work. I'm just seeing a lot of entitled brats, wanting everything served to them. Sheesh - maybe Snutt or Jace could come to your house and play the game "for" you too?

Run a car engine at 250% past redline, and see how that goes for you - or run it at 50% of redline.... all machines fail/last exponentially when "clocked" over/under their recommended settings. That is reality. Just because you don't want to do a bit of math, doesn't mean the rest of the players currently enjoying the game, need to suddenly start enjoying it "your way".

[Bichigusomaru]

There doesn't seem to be much reason to change it, apart from making it obvious how it works.

If you underclock, you're trading power for space. If you overclock, you're trading space for power. After coal generators, sources of power are abundant, so if you need more power you just... go make it. Resources are unlimited, too, so no need to worry about "limited power."

If they don't want people to underclock things to 1% (huuuuuuge time and space cost), just limit underclocking power benefits to 25% or 50%.

[Bookslayer10]

Originally posted by Bichigusomaru:

Resources are unlimited, too, so no need to worry about "limited power."

Resources are unlimited, resources per second are limited.
Power production takes resources per second, so there is a cap to how much power you can produce, excluding biomass ofc.

Your points are all valid and I agree though, you can practically always get more power.

[Wood_[OBC]]

if you shard the 6 oil nodes at the blue crater, you can acquire 2550 crude. Using alts "Heavy Oil Residue" and "Diluted Fuel" you can make enough fuel for a bit more than 566 fuel generators (84,900 MW or power) while also generating sufficient polymer resin to keep you in plastic/rubber/fabric for a little while... and that's only one location... there's more oil.. and then there's nuclear... gasp!

[kLuns]

Originally posted by Wood_OBC:

if you shard the 6 oil nodes at the blue crater...

don't forget you can blend in a little bit of sulfur to get some turbo fuel, depending on how much sulfur you need for batteries, nuclear etc.

[Wood_[OBC]]

Originally posted by kLuns:

Originally posted by Wood_OBC:

if you shard the 6 oil nodes at the blue crater...

don't forget you can blend in a little bit of sulfur to get some turbo fuel, depending on how much sulfur you need for batteries, nuclear etc.

Yes sir - but my playstyle prefers to preserve the sulfur. I can easily eclipse my power requirements from this one area, and have plenty of oil/sulfur leftover for endgame =D

[K'senia]

I never underclocked anything so. Only ever overclocked so that outputs and inputs matched up. Power was always cheap supply. Find some coal with a nearby water source and set up a power outpost. You can run power lines cheap.

[oldster]

Personally, linear over and underclocking makes sense to me regardless of beginner or not. It doesn't provide significant game improvement to have the clocking be an non-intuitive progression.