How can I figure out what is sucking the power out of my Redstone Energy Cell?

[zilvarwolf]

I am not the person you were replying to, but my position is that when you plop down a rolling machine, you're not done.
At the very least, you have to connect it to your power network. Having to build another engine, or some gates, is simply an extension of that. I don't know how facades even come into this.

In the context of my previous posts, it is highly likely that I am, in fact, done when I've placed the rolling machine. My preference for building, especially early/mid game, is to generate enough power to refill a redstone energy cell used as an intermediate buffer between my machines and my engines. My machines can, at any given point, pull more output than my engines can generate and I do not feel it is necessary to add more power generation to the system until the REC cannot fill up in a timely fashion, nor keep up with passive draw. As a result, I eliminate passive draw from the system (obvious methods, already discussed) at this point in my game as an inefficiency that that I'm unwilling to pay for.

Re: facades. I was attempting to introduce levity, because, really, if you're dropping 80000 mj on a pair of iron conditional gates to keep a rolling machine from burning energy then 1) what's another..what, 600? to hide the power lines, and 2) as I've said, you already recognize the problem that passive power drain represents in terms of a cost/reward failure and you're just quietly working around it. Honestly...if you truly believed it was a valid cost, you'd never apply a gate to it.

Really?

I suppose that needs clarification and stuff. I don't feel that nuclear reactors are complicated for a couple of reasons. The first, and most important, is that whenever you want to build one you can take your specifications and get an exact system from ye-old-internets, and in that case it just becomes a matter of cut and paste (well, drag and drop...you know what I mean, I think). Until the underlying rules change, making a reactor is no more complicated or difficult than opening a children's book and identifying an animal from a lineup.

The second, slightly less important reason, is that the rules of a nuclear reactor aren't all that complicated. (Fuel) produces energy but generates heat. (Fuel) next to (fuel) generates more energy than (fuel) that is separated. Surround (fuel) with cooling stuff, that which touches interacts. Fill empty spaces with useful items to help cool reactor, and so on. In the interests of full disclosure, I haven't built a reactor so I am not familiar with all of those rules. Just a subset that can be picked up while listening to LP's in the background while working, hoping to pick out another interesting idea to steal. I don't use industrialcraft for much of anything, so feel free to disagree with my assessment of reactors with an obligatory 'until you've built one...'. I can understand why. I think that the position is still essentially correct, even without firsthand experience, because the underlying rules of the reactor aren't all that complicated and don't seem to introduce enough variables to the process to make me feel it is difficult.

And now..back to your regularly scheduled squabbling.

 

[PhilHibbs]

I don't feel that nuclear reactors are complicated for a couple of reasons. The first, and most important, is that whenever you want to build one you can take your specifications and get an exact system from ye-old-internets, and in that case it just becomes a matter of cut and paste (well, drag and drop...you know what I mean, I think). Until the underlying rules change, making a reactor is no more complicated or difficult than opening a children's book and identifying an animal from a lineup.

So how could the system be made complicated in a way that is a) fun and b) not trivial to bypass by looking up the answer on the Internet? Seems to me that it would have to involve some kind of reactive decision making rather than fixed layouts.

 

[zilvarwolf]

So how could the system be made complicated in a way that is a) fun and b) not trivial to bypass by looking up the answer on the Internet? Seems to me that it would have to involve some kind of reactive decision making rather than fixed layouts.

Interesting question, and I don't really have a good answer. Some general thoughts, maybe, but it's not a question I've given any thought to at all, so this is really off the top of my head.

The nuke minigame has potential, and they got a base system that is, probably, pretty interesting (if generally considered underwhelming in output for the cost). Right now, the role seems to be filled by the 'how hot can I run the reactor' minigame, and it may be that this is the best we can do within the confines of the available systems. It seems pretty one-dimensional though, since you just, once again go to the internets and find a reactor that meets your infrastructure level.

You'd have to introduce a mechanic that allowed (but didn't require (much)) user interaction and rewarded you with long term, stable benefits. Umm, imagine you had to make a tool...I'll call it the nuclear magic wand, and you could use the NMW to fine-tune the connections between fuel and coolant by playing a minesweeper-like, or blokus-like (connect left-side to right-side avoiding obstacles) game. It wouldn't have to be terribly complicated, and shouldn't take much more than a few minutes. But completing the game gave you a bonus, and completing the game well gave you a bigger bonus to the efficiency of your coolant units.

Having more fuel cells, and/or more coolant cells increases the complexity of the game board, such that a fully filled out, quad-enriched-super-duper-plutonium reactor sporting magic-rift-into-outer-space-coolant cells might actually be impossible to beat. The complexity arises in balancing having a heavier reactor (which might just produce enough EU by itself without assistance), or maybe saving yourself some materials and using the NMW to make do with a slightly less uber reactor. In this case the player is faced with additional choices that can't just be downloaded.

 

[immibis]

In the context of my previous posts, it is highly likely that I am, in fact, done when I've placed the rolling machine. My preference for building, especially early/mid game, is to generate enough power to refill a redstone energy cell used as an intermediate buffer between my machines and my engines. My machines can, at any given point, pull more output than my engines can generate and I do not feel it is necessary to add more power generation to the system until the REC cannot fill up in a timely fashion, nor keep up with passive draw. As a result, I eliminate passive draw from the system (obvious methods, already discussed) at this point in my game as an inefficiency that that I'm unwilling to pay for.

In other words, passive drain is unacceptable to you because you want to build as few engines as possible?

 

[zilvarwolf]

In other words, passive drain is unacceptable to you because you want to build as few engines as possible?

Um. No? I'm not exactly sure what you're trying to accomplish with this post. It looks like you're trying to frame me as a Bad Player by misrepresenting what I said without the context of previous posts.

I believe that these two quotes accurately truncate my previous walls of text into digestible chunks.

What I do not want, in any form, is to have to continually revisit a machine that I've already built in order to babysit it. It's a well known truth that TIME is the only currency that is meaningful in minecraft. Everything else is, effectively, limitless, even without mods. My time is limited. It is sufficient to play, but insufficient to find enjoyment in being forced to rebuild a machine because I smashed a machine with a too-good pick due to lag, or having to go farm for another stack of coal, or another source of oil or lava, because that (expletive) machine won't stop wasting my power/resources/TIME.

and

But the induction furnace is an example of a machine with a valid cost-reward cycle. You (probably) don't mind paying that cost, because there is a reward for doing it (better, faster processing). That cost/reward cycle doesn't exist in any buildcraft machine. You just get the cost, and apparently just because. That's what I mean by it not appearing to be a good game design decision. Micromanagement should be rewarded by more than just 'I have to move my pump a little less often'. IMO.

 

[immibis]

What I do not want, in any form, is to have to continually revisit a machine that I've already built in order to babysit it. It's a well known truth that TIME is the only currency that is meaningful in minecraft. Everything else is, effectively, limitless, even without mods. My time is limited. It is sufficient to play, but insufficient to find enjoyment in being forced to rebuild a machine because I smashed a machine with a too-good pick due to lag, or having to go farm for another stack of coal, or another source of oil or lava, because that (expletive) machine won't stop wasting my power/resources/TIME.

Have you tried using an automatic tree farm like everyone else?

But the induction furnace is an example of a machine with a valid cost-reward cycle. You (probably) don't mind paying that cost, because there is a reward for doing it (better, faster processing). That cost/reward cycle doesn't exist in any buildcraft machine. You just get the cost, and apparently just because. That's what I mean by it not appearing to be a good game design decision. Micromanagement should be rewarded by more than just 'I have to move my pump a little less often'. IMO.

If there was an induction-furnace-speed furnace which did not draw 1 EU/t constantly, you'd be applying the same argument against induction furnaces.

 

[zilvarwolf]

Have you tried using an automatic tree farm like everyone else?

At this point, I can only assume you didn't bother to read any of my previous posts fully. This has been answered, indirectly.

If there was an induction-furnace-speed furnace which did not draw 1 EU/t constantly, you'd be applying the same argument against induction furnaces.

I would?

Sir, I'm not sure why you're attacking me rather than addressing the topic, but I really don't think it's appropriate to the thread or subject. I'll try again for a third time..Do you have a rebuttal for the following statement:

(I believe) you already recognize the problem that passive power drain represents in terms of a cost/reward failure and you're just quietly working around it. Honestly...if you truly believed it was a valid cost, you'd never apply a gate to it.

 

[Wekmor]

Can't be bothered reading through all 8 pages so I don't know if this was already said:

Yesterday we had a problem on the server were one guy's REC always empties, even tho he only had no constant draw machines there.
In the end he had a BioFuel generator from MFR hooked up to that REC and didn't set the energy conduit to the orange mode. It makes no sense that this would drain the REC, but it did

 

[immibis]

At this point, I can only assume you didn't bother to read any of my previous posts fully. This has been answered, indirectly.

I am refuting one point at a time. You said that the constant use of MJ is a constant waste of your time. Most people use methods of energy production that do not require your time to produce energy. Where did you refute this?

I would?

Sir, I'm not sure why you're attacking me rather than addressing the topic, but I really don't think it's appropriate to the thread or subject. I'll try again for a third time..Do you have a rebuttal for the following statement:

(I believe) you already recognize the problem that passive power drain represents in terms of a cost/reward failure and you're just quietly working around it. Honestly...if you truly believed it was a valid cost, you'd never apply a gate to it.

Sure. Just because it's not a valid cost does not mean it can't be reduced by another reward. If IC2 had energy efficiency upgrades, then "if you truly believed 2 EU/t was a valid cost to run a macerator, you'd never apply energy efficiency upgrades to it" would not be a valid argument.

 

[zilvarwolf]

I am refuting one point at a time. You said that the constant use of MJ is a constant waste of your time. Most people use methods of energy production that do not require your time to produce energy. Where did you refute this?

Sure. Just because it's not a valid cost does not mean it can't be reduced by another reward. If IC2 had energy efficiency upgrades, then "if you truly believed 2 EU/t was a valid cost to run a macerator, you'd never apply energy efficiency upgrades to it" would not be a valid argument.

I apologize in advance for formatting errors. Doing this on the phone is more difficult than I expected.

I cannot refute your first statement, as it hinges on assumptions of people's play styles. It may be correct, and it does in fact apply to me, but not until end-game. The point in time where I no longer care and see/hear/say no evil, as I said in my second post in this topic, I think.

A gate is not a reward. You are using the term in a fashion that I find counterintuitive. A gate is, by definition, a control construct (infrastructure), and can only be termed a cost.

 

[immibis]

I apologize in advance for formatting errors. Doing this on the phone is more difficult than I expected.

I cannot refute your first statement, as it hinges on assumptions of people's play styles. It may be correct, and it does in fact apply to me, but not until end-game. The point in time where I no longer care and see/hear/say no evil, as I said in my second post in this topic, I think.

A gate is not a reward. You are using the term in a fashion that I find counterintuitive. A gate is, by definition, a control construct (infrastructure), and can only be termed a cost.

A gate is a thing that has both costs and rewards.
As a cost, you need some redstone, possibly gold/diamond, iron, and dyes.
As a reward, you get improved control of some things.

 

[Hoff]

A gate is a thing that has both costs and rewards.
As a cost, you need some redstone, possibly gold/diamond, iron, and dyes.
As a reward, you get improved control of some things.

You also ignored the infrastructure cost. Which is the highest cost when gates are of most use.

 

[RedBoss]

This all sounds like work. Not effort into a game, but more like something I should be paid to do or at least get a grade. This is why I barely ever use this stuff.

But it's interesting to read the debate

 

[Enigmius1]

Have you tried using an automatic tree farm like everyone else?


If there was an induction-furnace-speed furnace which did not draw 1 EU/t constantly, you'd be applying the same argument against induction furnaces.

Let's not point to mid-game systems as solutions to penalties applied to systems that are present from early game through late. That means gates are not a solution to constant power draw, nor are mid/late game power plant setups. You need the rolling machine to build the boilers that consume the wood provided by the tree farm to convert it to steam consumed by engines producing the MJ that offsets the power draw. Long before you can offset the penalty, you're forced to endure it or micro-manage to bypass it.

Gates are no better. Any solution that only makes sense until you consider it in the full context of its application is not a good solution.

 

[zilvarwolf]

A gate is a thing that has both costs and rewards.
As a cost, you need some redstone, possibly gold/diamond, iron, and dyes.
As a reward, you get improved control of some things.

All true, and a good attempt to pick up the original conversation and change direction. I believe I joined this thread with people talking about how a cost without a reward is a poor game design decision and appear to have gotten sidetracked by this diversion into mid- and late-game dynamics, and whether or not a gate is a reward or a thing that offers rewards.

(aside, you left off some of the most significant cost of the gates...the cheapest one is 30000 mj + perdition, so a minimum of 19 additional coal worth of MJ...the first really useful gate is slightly more than twice that cost. To continue this aside, that is a very significant cost in early and early-mid game, at the point in time where lossy machines are a real concern)

We've established that gates are a thing with a cost and reward. By my statements, that makes gates well designed (yes..simplified...it's a forum thread, not a dissertation).

So how does this apply to lossy power?

 

[nilness]

Wow. I just read all 8 pages of this debate. I feel like there should be an achievement unlocked.

And after reading the whole thread I think this comes down do nothing more than a preference in play styles. To be fair, it's made more complicated by the fact that we are talking about a difference not just among players, but among mod developers as well.

Personally, I don't really like power perdition. I feel like modded minecraft is a way to gradually move past the grind of vanilla minecraft and add new frontiers to explore. The machines you build should open new vistas, not be a source of micromanagement. Here's my personal experience.

I've been playing the same SSP world since before FTB added 1.5.2 packs (just to give a time frame) and I'm well past branch mining for ores. I'm also well past the point of power production being anything more than a nuisance. I have an engine room with 32 combustion engines feeding a couple of tesseracts. I have a 36 hp boiler feeding steam engines. I have more electric engines running than I can remember (one of the first things I taught my AE system to craft was HV solars). I have so many engines running that I've had to stop using the Sphax pack and go back to default textures Oh, and a dozen or so combustion engines powering about 40 centrifuges for bee output!

And that's the problem I want to throw into the mix. I can pay whatever energy costs you require, perdition or no, but if it requires MJ I can only do so by adding more engines. And individually they don't produce much, which means adding many and watching my game performance suffer for it. Why isn't there a high-tier engine/block/multiblock/whatever that can produce MJ on the order of 100-200/tick? Why not something like the steam turbine for MJ? Make it as expensive as it needs to be, that's okay. When we're able to afford it then our minecraft experience will be improved for it.

I define end game as all your basic needs are met - food, energy, and materials - and believe that's when you should be more or less free to explore whatever direction you choose. Bees, AE, Thaumcraft, Ars Magica, giant Railcraft systems, whatever... without having to manage what are essentially mid-tier MJ production sources. Give us a truly end game MJ power source and that will offset some of the complaints of power perdition.

I think TE really nails it on trading resources for ease of use. I really hope his new power system goes above what is available and meets this need. The splintering between MJs and Flux Units (the proposed new TE energy unit, right?) is a bitter pill to swallow now but could be a boon in the long run.

I do ramble, don't I, so...

tl;dr: I don't like power perdition, some do. Give me a new end game MJ generator that will make me not notice or care!

ps- I'm glad the OP got his problem solved, and thanks for letting us continue to chat!

 

[Lawbroken]

Wow. I just read all 8 pages of this debate. I feel like there should be an achievement unlocked.

Achievement Unlocked,
Thread locked.

OP's question has been answered.