Water siphons VS pumps (pumps win)

[IndieInc.]

Are siphons useless or what?

A siphon costs 25k more than a pump, takes up significantly more space and costs more upkeep!

Here are the numbers:
Siphon:
Build cost 150k
Upkeep: 16.25k
Harvesting time: 10d

Pump:
Build cost: 125k
Upkeep: 12.5k
Harvesting time: 15d

OK, siphon costs more upkeep while generating resources 33% faster than a pump. But is it really worth it? With 5 harvesters a siphon generates 15 water / 16.25k / 1mo whereas a pump generates 10 water / 12.5k / 1mo. The time unit is the same so we can get rid of it and simplify =
siphon: 1 water / 1.083k
pump: 1 water / 1.25k.

Additionally, pumps do not have dispatch costs when returning water to main facility, siphons do.

The difference is 0.167k or taking the lower cost of siphon as the 100% base, pumping water is 115.42% that. Are the 15% (and less, depending on how much it costs to truck the water back to facility) saved in water production costs worth it to limit where farms can be placed? I think not.

[Alex, Master Penguin]

Interesting theorycrafting. Love it.

Although, I think one of us messed up: siphons should cost LESS than the well, to counter the fact that they need real water. If this isn't the case, I need to fix it in the next patch.

Also, the Wells are more susceptible to pollution

[IndieInc.]

Like I laid out, Alex, siphons are more cost-efficient than wells, but only by ~15%, which is not enough in my opinion. I just checked how my wells are doing next to factories that are being pollution-cleaned (in the green zone) and it seems there is no no detrimental effect on efficiency.

If you are open to tweak suggestions I'd recommend communicating the intent better, namely, making wells cost more to build and operate. Furthermore, I'd go so far as to say that siphons should be ~50% more cost-effective than wells.

[Alex, Master Penguin]

That is exactly what I meant. Wells should be the expensive ones, not Siphons

[laurifen]

You can't just consider cost, though; the harvesting time is a big factor when deciding what kind of water facility to place. It wouldn't matter if water were free, if it only generated at 1 unit per 365 days. Getting 15 per month rather than 10 per month has to be taken into account when declaring one "the winner".

[IndieInc.]

No worries, laurifen, I did take it into consideration. Siphons take 10 days to generate, so they 'tick' thrice a month whereas wells take 15 days and generate and tick twice. Thus siphons produce 15 water a month to wells' 10, it's in the math.

As to your 1 per year, but free example.. It's just like I say to those "but these overpriced supplements absorb better!" people: I'll just take more of my 'poorly absorbing', but more cost-effective pill then!

[laurifen]

I noticed you'd included the time in your calculations. My point wasn't related to unit cost, it was related to the supply and demand.

A single siphon can perfectly meet the needs of three farms, whereas it would take 1.5 pumps to meet the demand. You absolutely could build two pumps and set one to 50% efficiency, but you still require two buildings to meet the supply. It may be cheaper per unit, but it adds complexity to the calculations and requires more land space and infrastructure to support two water producers.

For some people, there are factors other than cost per unit that determine "the winner" (or "the right choice"). Convenience, aesthetics, connectivity, the terrain ...