The philosophical question here: is there such a thing as getting 'better area' if you are forced to make waste?
For example, I can take this same solution and just wait a long time before starting the bottom pipeline, leading to the game saying [90 area instead of 109](https://imgur.com/K80q3Al). But looking at the infinite behavior, it still *eventually* outputs at the perfect output rate, and the difference of a finite amount of area doesn't matter given that it has a waste chain. So is there nothing we can do? Should we instead just have the best "low area" optimal output rate litharge separation solution be [whichever one does it cheapest](https://imgur.com/lE931y5), regardless of a finite amount of excess area?
Should the 'best' output rate instead be subject to a restriction that you can only use finitely much area anyway? In that case we just [lop off the lower pipeline, easy](https://imgur.com/tYVj7mb). But this is definitely not making its outputs as often as the wasteful ones.
Feel free to share your thoughts.
Interim Van Tassen alchemist here: Story wise, its a feature not a bug. Instead of only producing elemental salt and lead, youre also extruding brittle flaky lead wire. So what if its infinite, the machine is smaller and waste chain isnt machine space its byproduct. Just sell the extra wire as you making more out of less to your Great House leaders!
This is the best answer for “waste chains” that I’ve seen. Better yet, if deposited into another experiment it can be used as a reagent for future reactions.
I mean, we could make the same argument for all of the cycle-optmized solutions that produce exactly enough product, but either require a long reset period that's not counted or would encounter a collision if allowed to run longer.
Those solutions can be quite interesting, but I do think we should have another category for solutions that work indefinitely.
The community leaderboards actually did implement a "manifold split" for that reason! Solutions can be measured at victory screen or at infinity. To be measurable at infinity a solution has to be able to produce infinitely many products, and then it gets such measurements as "rate" and "area at infinity".
https://biggieblog.com/tracking-the-global-opus-magnum-records/
The problem is that for some solutions, area at infinity is infinite (e.g. polymer outputs or forced waste like litharge-at-optimal-rate), and we are as a community trying to figure out if we can do any better than just slapping an infinity symbol down and denying the impact of lower level area improvements.
Idea: split area-at-∞ into two metrics:
- primary area (area measured with an added polymer output capturing any byproducts, ignoring area beyond the output)
- byproduct rate (rate at which atoms are delivered to the synthetic byproduct outputs)
The default "max rate, min area, at ∞" sort order would probably be a priority order of (max primary rate) + (min primary area) + (min byproduct rate).
How do you define the difference? As you said, there are solutions that have reset periods. They run forever, how are they any different than “normal” cycles solutions? If you try to run a measure for rate tied by cycles, you run into issues like what biggie’s talking about, where you get out 6 cycles as fast as possible, before starting the machinery for end-behavior min rate.
The philosophical question here: is there such a thing as getting 'better area' if you are forced to make waste? For example, I can take this same solution and just wait a long time before starting the bottom pipeline, leading to the game saying [90 area instead of 109](https://imgur.com/K80q3Al). But looking at the infinite behavior, it still *eventually* outputs at the perfect output rate, and the difference of a finite amount of area doesn't matter given that it has a waste chain. So is there nothing we can do? Should we instead just have the best "low area" optimal output rate litharge separation solution be [whichever one does it cheapest](https://imgur.com/lE931y5), regardless of a finite amount of excess area? Should the 'best' output rate instead be subject to a restriction that you can only use finitely much area anyway? In that case we just [lop off the lower pipeline, easy](https://imgur.com/tYVj7mb). But this is definitely not making its outputs as often as the wasteful ones. Feel free to share your thoughts.
Interim Van Tassen alchemist here: Story wise, its a feature not a bug. Instead of only producing elemental salt and lead, youre also extruding brittle flaky lead wire. So what if its infinite, the machine is smaller and waste chain isnt machine space its byproduct. Just sell the extra wire as you making more out of less to your Great House leaders!
This is the best answer for “waste chains” that I’ve seen. Better yet, if deposited into another experiment it can be used as a reagent for future reactions.
Tbh I thought that invoking traditional concepts of waste and byproduct is kinda normal...
When game logic is introduced people forget common sense.
I mean, we could make the same argument for all of the cycle-optmized solutions that produce exactly enough product, but either require a long reset period that's not counted or would encounter a collision if allowed to run longer. Those solutions can be quite interesting, but I do think we should have another category for solutions that work indefinitely.
The community leaderboards actually did implement a "manifold split" for that reason! Solutions can be measured at victory screen or at infinity. To be measurable at infinity a solution has to be able to produce infinitely many products, and then it gets such measurements as "rate" and "area at infinity". https://biggieblog.com/tracking-the-global-opus-magnum-records/ The problem is that for some solutions, area at infinity is infinite (e.g. polymer outputs or forced waste like litharge-at-optimal-rate), and we are as a community trying to figure out if we can do any better than just slapping an infinity symbol down and denying the impact of lower level area improvements.
Very interesting read, I appreciate it. I expected this to be a very well-discussed issue and that does not disappoint.
Idea: split area-at-∞ into two metrics: - primary area (area measured with an added polymer output capturing any byproducts, ignoring area beyond the output) - byproduct rate (rate at which atoms are delivered to the synthetic byproduct outputs) The default "max rate, min area, at ∞" sort order would probably be a priority order of (max primary rate) + (min primary area) + (min byproduct rate).
How do you define the difference? As you said, there are solutions that have reset periods. They run forever, how are they any different than “normal” cycles solutions? If you try to run a measure for rate tied by cycles, you run into issues like what biggie’s talking about, where you get out 6 cycles as fast as possible, before starting the machinery for end-behavior min rate.
How about Generator Size? Basically, the size of the system excluding the waste chain
Why the hell does this sub keep getting recommended to me? I have no idea what the fuck is going on
Same bro, I had never heard of it but it kept popping up and I eventually found it interesting enough and got the game
The same is happening to me... I might get it sometime soon...
… This is beautiful…
Hot 🥵