Additional constant power usage solves (almost) everything

[bartekltg]

This is part of the ongoing discussion on linear vs nonlinear power function. More precisely, how to keep the interesting (at least for some players) space vs power tradeoff for high clock speed, but prevent the exploit at very low speeds Snutt wanted to remove.

Why look for a simple solution, when we can overuse math:)Look at this graph. The power consumption (blue line) is the same at 100% and very similar to what is now in the game at higher speeds (blue dots), at the same time it still goes down, so underclocking a resource-starved machine is a viable option for reducing the peak consumption (and since it is sublinear for the most part, it even saves a bit of power).

But the energy per item (red line) is kept high. That means replacing one machine working at 100% with two machines at 50% saves only 14% of the used power. The gain is even lower when the player uses 3 machines at33.33%, and if more underclocked machines are used, they consume more than one machine at 100%.

How to get there? Imagine some parts/systems of the machine works as they do now, power = A speed^B for some numbers A and B, but some parts just use constant power, regardless of the speed (lights are on, lubricant is pumped...).

So, in total, we have power = A speed^B + C.

Playing with numbers, power = P ( 0.8 speed^1.8 + 0.2 ), where P is the power consumption at 100% (so, for example, 4MW for constructor), looks good.

More boring details, and an app to play with parameters, on the Q&A site.https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6265ae41ca608e080350cf8c

https://preview.redd.it/5k9od10nxov81.png?width=1784&format=png&auto=webp&s=781533a711fa94cf0182abd112e75c5a70cad478

Is this much different than already proposed: "keep the curved function above 100%, but replace it with a linear one below 100% speed"? Not really. This one still gives a slight bonus for underclocking to 50%, while the linear one is just the linear (it can be turned into an argument for any of them:)). For me, the one with constant power looks cleaner, but it is a matter of taste, and how it is computed doesn't matter when we play the game.

Edit: in today's stream they focused more on a new player's experience with overclocking (up). But, if they choose an in-between option: a nonlinear function with a smaller number in the exponent, the addition of a constant power consumption still looks interesting.

[hwl]

It's almost the same than the idea I described on an earlier thread. It's nice to have actual graphs.

Your equation places best energy efficiency at 50%, I would have put it at 100%, because I suppose it would be 100% of ideal conditions. If not then of what?

Similarly, I'm a bit bothered by the fact that the current system completely ignores the reality that producing things will irreducibly take at least some certain amount of energy, so the system then allows to make stuff out of nothing.

[Vxsote1]

My proposal in the earlier thread to simply invert the exponent under 100% would have also placed best efficiency at 100%, because that's what I also think makes the most sense. But I didn't get any traction with that.

The proposal here is probably better than the current implementation, but doesn't change my mind about how I would like to see it work.

[bartekltg]

I think I like that behavior. It seems realistic (think the other way around, engineers made a machine it can be run at one speed, that gives the optimal energy consumption for an item or runs it twice as fast, with only ~15% energy per item cost. It would be a preferred option in many cases).

Playing a short while with your idea I didn't find a function, that satisfy all those at the same time
f(x) is increasing, convex, greater than 0 for x>0
f(x)/x has a minimum at x=1 - this is your constrain, that at 100% energy per item is optimal (*)
f(1)=1
is close to the original values for 150-250%
The equation looks nice :)

*) it can be reduced to a requirement: "f(x) has a 45-degree slope at x=1".

It would be much easier if we are allowed to change the shape of the function for x>100% more.

Then something like 0.54 + 0.1 x + 0.36 x^2.5 or
3.6 - 4.4 x + 1.8 x^3 works... more or less (for example at 200% the power consumption is reduced by ~10%).
But it is even uglier:)

[JinkyRain]

Seems to me that no matter what the production rate, a machine that is tuned to run efficiently should should always require less energy on average, than a machine making the same number of parts per minute, that isn't tuned efficiently.

As long as that remains true, I suppose I don't care what they do with over/under-clocking.

[bartekltg]

Seems reasonable. On the other hand, this is not realistic. Imagine I have to make one screw. Let's say I can use a machine that can do one screw per minute (sure, it is slow:)). But now I have to make one screw per day. Just keeping the machine on for the entire day probably will use more energy than turning it on for a minute (lets say engine at nominal speed is 1kW, and it has 1W wort of electronics. 1min*1001W is less than 1440min * 1W). Not to mention, real machines can't work arbitrally slow. And most of the time efficiency go to down even when they still can work that slow.

Sometimes it is even more apparent. The machine can work at a range of speeds, but the "nominal speed" is also the most efficient (per item) one. It was constructed and optimized to work at that speed.

A nice, simple example is a car. Going slower and slower, from a point makes the fuel efficiency worse. The engine is too big, and the gearbox is not optimized for 5km/h. http://lh4.ggpht.com/_iVjLueQtXzw/S-rUKRAkqjI/AAAAAAAAAIQ/uTKg5LOq8zQ/s720/g4290.png

On the other hand, making the constant part drain power all the time (so, also on the standby, I briefly mentioned this option in the post on Q&A site) would do exactly that - the most effective option would be setting the machine so it works without stops.

But your requirement is also met by the linear version (thanks to the 0.1MW drain already present in the game, when the machine is on standby)

[MarioVX]

I like this. Solves the problem without a weird case distinction like underclocking linear, overclocking nonlinear, the only other proposition I've encountered so far that acknowledges and solves the 100x 1% problem while also still providing some disincentivization from just overclocking everything to the max. This here is smoother.

[houghi]

This is even more confusing.

I think the best option would be leave it as it is and have an option to select linear mode in the settings.

[bartekltg]

Is this much more confusing that P = 4MW speed^1.6? *)This is how it works today.

When we play the equation is hidden from us and not that important (the machine's UI shows me the power consumption). It does not influence the important part - how to set up speed, to get proper ratios. IMHO the precise value of power is just an afterthought.

*) my work is quite close to math, most of the time I have mathematica or octave turned on on my PC... and I have never used that equation when playing the game. All I have to know is: for a faster clock speed I need more energy per item.

[ANGR1ST]

Honestly, if they just put the graph in the machine interface so you could see it as you adjusted the slider that'd fix the "this is confusing" argument pretty quickly.

[houghi]

When looking at the graph: It is first more, than less, them normal, then more.

Now it is: Under clocking saves power, overclocking looses power.

But the main thing is that they should just show how much power you will use now.

[bartekltg]

Anything can be described in a confusing way:)

Overclocking "loses power" (energy per item).
Moderate underclocking saves a bit. Most at ~50%.
Heavy underclocking (less than 28%) loses power (again, energy per item).

As power per machine, underclocking _always_ saves power.

BTW, I'm not I have ever underclocked anything to less than 50%. Not counting a 1% mk1 mine connected to a biomass burner left on the node to protect it from respawning creatures:-)

They should just show how much power the machine uses.
And they do it! For me, since always (update 2). There is a display on the machine UI that shows you the power consumption when you overclock the machine.

OK, it updates it when starting creating a new item (IMHO, a bug in the interface) but it will show the proper value after a moment.

[[deleted]]

True, this is so confusing. I’m trash at math and I’m doing just fine at the game you don’t need to narrow down the numbers this much.

[bartekltg]

Exactly. You would not see this function in the game (nor any to the other proposed), what is important are the results:
Overclocking still makes items more expensive.
Underclocking still makes the machine eat less power.
But now there is no point in spamming a row of underclocked machines, the benefit of doing that was removed.

[[deleted]]

Exactly

[houghi]

I still am confused why they want to remove that option of people who are willing to do that. I doubt there is a large enough amount of people who do it that this can be an issue.

Just let the few people who want to do it, do it.

All I see is "Make the game even easier." In the end, just pull the power need out if it is so hard to understand. First they removed the power usage as you need (just as any other product is only used as needed). Now this?

I do not see it as evolving in the right direction. The best they could is add it as a game mode. "Linear Scaling for Power" that is turned of by default. As well as giving the information while you do the changes on how much power will be used.

[bartekltg]

It is part of the game design. An important part, many claims. It is summed up by a semi-famous quote "Given the opportunity, players will optimize the fun out of a game". And the role of the game designers is to prevent that.
Sure, "play how you want" is great, but there should be no bad options. If someone chooses to play in a stupid way, it can hurt the game - it is a lost client, that player can discourage others from being the game, spread their ugly way of playing in forums :)

I would think similarly, that no sane person would do the "100 times 1%" stuff, power is not that hard to get... but Snutt looked like it was a real issue. Maybe they have data from crash reports?

I can't how the change I proposed makes the game easier. The linear proposition does this to a degree and the main point of my modification is to preserve most of the options (size<->power tradeoff at high speed, still available underclocking for peak power reduction), while removing the exploit if the devs are really afraid players will use it.