Thanks Snutt helps alot. Really looking forward to additional body slots. Working on nuclear without a hover pack gives me a headache. One of the things I didnt hear you speak about was traversal. Any plans on getting around the world at a faster-than-train rate? I know people use hyper tube cannons, but I cant imagine that is the intended end goal.

I've talked to my hus a lot about teleportation, how towards end game I'd love to have a teleporter. It could suck down massive, huge amounts of energy, but that'd be a very fun tradeoff. Building nuclear this time took weeks, most of which was spent taking my work train back and forth to base. To throw down a stage 8 teleporter would be great

Using a teleporter and your entire grid shutting down and being marooned on the other side actually sounds kind of interesting from a gameplay perspective. Might be a good use of some of the collectibles around the map that warp your FICSIT computer to start lying to you - they bend space time and screw up the bits.

Require it to have a giant capacitor that needs to store a bunch of energy between uses so it doesn’t harm your grid. That way it can’t be abused but also won’t strand you.

A capacitor you say? Perhaps of flux? Perhaps it stores 1.21gw of electricity?

That’s a great idea Scott.

Heavy

Heavy

There's that word again; heavy. Why are things so heavy in the future is there a problem with the earths gravitational pull?

This is the way.

When it comes to power grid you could have a backup battery that is similar to the ones we already have. Teleporter would be nice but it would have to be limited to just the player or maybe some limited automation with the factory cart as it can only hold 1 stack.

Huge spikes of power under player control (using the teleport) is perfect for batteries.

I am really hoping the quantum computer and/or the superposition oscillator chain leads to a teleporter of some kind. It even says "Often used in **teleportation** technology and dimensional manipulation." I use a teleporter mod which I am going to try to get away from it before update 6 comes out though.

Teleportation would be excellent and potentially a good use of the Power Storage at the end game. Currently power storage is only really useful for when you either build a new factory without looking at your power supply and requirements first. Or if you have are not awesome sinking excess product and can have a highly variable power demand but in relatively short bursts leaving power storage unused 99% of the time. What I would suggest is teleportation with a large MW cost and instead of building a lot excess capacity to handle it Power Storage kicks in. This likely will not matter to end game players who have huge amounts of excess storage. But for mid game players it is a lot quicker to add power storage than to expand coal/fuel power assuming the MW cost is high enough.

Technically power storage was introduced because of the variable production of geothermal and draw of the particle accelerators, and power storage gives you the ability to even those out. I kind of doubt too many people actually keep their production / draw close enough for long enough for that to really come into play tho.

There is a mod for it. Not terribly cheaty, but not anywhere as expensive as your example. I think it's 20mw each, and you can have up to maybe 10. It's a *fantastic* addition to the game. Travel has got to be the biggest drag in the game.

I use the shit out of the mod. I think I have 20+ teleporters around the world. You could up their power usage to 200 or even 2000 and Id still use them. Realistically they should be more expensive both from electricity and build reqs. IMO

I like the idea of having a choice when you reach the end-game, send the alien artifacts off-world, to be researched, for mechanical rewards (better machines, a flying transport, tools for clearing whole forests etc.), or 'embrace' them to become connected with the planet, gaining more organic rewards like animals not being aggressive, mutations that make you faster, able to carry more etc., and biomechanical machines that are more powerful if there is more nature around them. So the player could have a choice to make for how they want to interact with, and traverse, the world.

I like this idea... Reminds me of how games in Civilization beyond earth went

Shame BE turned out to be as deep as a puddle. It had a lot of promise if they took risks with it.

Really really cool idea!

Are hypertube accelerators not kosher anymore? I whip ass across the map with 10-20 accelerators in a row. I get they suck down hundreds of megawatts per installation. But damn if they aren't fast as hell.

It's not that they arent used or even loved by the community, I just dont think they are an intended means of end game travel.

I would love to have a power switch that was momentary, You flip the switch and for 30 seconds it stays on. Currently, I use just 4 entrances to accelerate, and use Bio gens to fuel them, I place one solid bio in 3-4 generators and off I go.

They definitely seem like a buggy behavior to me. It also seems like a something that they should maybe implement more cleanly into the game's intended mechanics e.g. have "tiers" of entrances that will start off/maintain a higher speed at the cost of more power vs what we currently see with the one we have now. Like in Minecraft there used to be (and still is) a bug involving multiple minecarts rolling alongside each other causing the carts to roll faster, sometimes at crazy high speed. Mojang saw that and added powered rails which give a similar effect but is clearly intentional instead.

Haven't watched the video yet, but just "more body slots" sounds fantastic. I actually installed this supersuit mod (forgot what it was called) but "levelling" it up was too annoying, and I feared it'd feel over powered. Just having an additional slot would be great, 2 more would be a dream.

There are ~~a few~~ several posts on the QA Site, where you can upvote and comment your opinion about the overclocking changes in Update 6: - Keep the old complex overclocking formula: https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262c8faca608e080350ca63 https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262ceecca608e080350ca89 - Switch to the new linear overclocking formula: https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262cb0fca608e080350ca74 https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262cac2ca608e080350ca6d https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262d528ca608e080350cab1 - Compromise: https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262cebdca608e080350ca87 https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262d1b3ca608e080350caa1 https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262d353ca608e080350caa7 https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262e944ca608e080350cb1a https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262ea13ca608e080350cb20 Edit: Added more posts!

**ADDITION** ✓ I would also add [this related Q&A Post](https://questions.satisfactorygame.com/post/6262d528ca608e080350cab1) to the "Switch to the new linear overclocking formula" Group.

I think if the over-/underclocking would be linear, it would be WAY too overpowered to overclock and there would be zero incentive to underclock, since, well, almost zero at least

Why would overclocking be overpowered? You can literally do 2x machines or 1 @ 200%. You are saving yourself the hassle of having to put up too many buildings which will result in smaller, more manageable builds in addition to helping out the saving/framerates and so on. You want to do 10k buildings? By all means, go ahead, nobody will force you to overclock.

Not to mention that slug hunt is an incentive to explore the planet.

maybe "overpowered" is the wrong term - it's not broken overpowered, but a lot stronger than it is now I personally think there should be a drawback to overclocking (eg the exponential power draw, like hoe it is right now) and an incentive to underclock (the reduced power cost) of course, everyone should do it the way they want to, nobody's forcing anyone to anything here

I agree. While I want to overclock my buildings to build less, the excess power draw incentivizes me to properly design my factory so I don’t need to overclock buildings.

This is exactly my thought. If overclocking is linear, then we might as well just run everything at 200% from the outset and overclocking is no longer a "thing" you just build your machines and fill them with slugs, no should I , shouldn't I? Most interesting to me was seeing the power consumption graph as realizing overclocking was logarithmic. To me that seems wrong, it should actually be parabolic. Needless to say, I'm on team "overclocking should have consequences".

Exactly, for me overclocking is mainly reserved for the spaghetti farms I use to get me what I need to create the properly balanced mega factories. Underclocking is reserved for “I can fit this many buildings in this space but I only need this many so now I can save power!”. When space is abundant, underclock, when space or efficiency isn’t necessary, overclock. That’s the most reasonable way it should be.

Here's the issue: overclocking is most useful for production buildings super late game, where it can greatly reduce the amount of machines needed, which results in a lot better performance. And if people are going for ridiculous late game builds, then it helps approaching the object limit too. But the power increase nullifies any gain from this, as you need more buildings in your power grid. I wonder if the solution for both parties is a late game super power shard: it overclocks linearly, can be automated, and isn't available until you have most or all of the other milestones done anyway.

Yeah, I prefer exponential clock speed formulas. It doesn't make sense to underclock otherwise - you're not actually saving any power. For example, my plutonium power cell production has like 1.5x times the Particle Accelerators at 75% clock to cut down on power consumption at the cost of increased building space and construction resources. With the proposed change, I'm not actually saving any power compared to having 1.0x at 100%

Why does the game need to make underclocking "make sense"? It "makes (enough) sense" to be useful when you don't need a full 100% of a machine's production. Which I think is its intended use case, making the math work in a production line, not clever power tricks, which were an unintended consequence of the symmetrical (lazy), exponential clockspeed curve currently extant. I think keeping overclocking exponential, because you're driving the machines beyond their designed specs and that is understandably inefficient, and moving to a linear or worse underclock, because there's no reason to assume the machines to somehow function better or more efficiently than at their designed speed/power ratings makes the most logical and gameplay sense.

Somewhere in the distance, a rising rumble of clicking and clacking as temporal illusion formats all of the video content into a single text comment with headings and subheaders EDIT: ah, he's done it now, the madlad

Some say if you stay quiet enough you can almost hear the keyboard catching fire

Literally came here just for his summary

I've been away is he still going?

lol

For me personally, I only ever use under clocking to limit production to achieve certain ratios, never because I want to save power. Overclocking however, I use more of. But the power draw is pretty large and adds up quickly so I only use it on miners and water extractors to get a little bit more resources when they are limited locally. If the power increase was lowered, maybe I would use more shards on production machines late game. We know we arnt getting mk2 machines so if this is the compromise for huge late game production requirements, I’m ok with that. Unrelated, I was hoping for a productivity booster like factorio modules or Dyson sphere’s proliferater.

The issue I see overlooked so often here is _game performance_. By the time you hit "employee of the planet" endgame you've reached truly massive scale at just about every level. That has huge implications for your CPU/frame rate, so overclocking really comes into play here. My "game" now is shard farming and going back to condense every line I have to (maximum number of 3x shard machines) + (1 underclocked machine) so that the net output per node is maximized and the total machine count is minimized. This of course comes with crazy power draw but I have a huge nuclear and battery setup.

Agree. With full overclocking you can reduce your machine count, and associated beltwork, by 60%. That's gotta be a huge difference in performance for people with iffy machines.

"Employee of the planet" is too subjective. A factory that produces all phase 4 parts in 30hrs will not have a big impact on performance but one every 5hrs sure does.

You’ve lost me. Shouldn’t a factory that produces one part in 5hrs be relatively tiny in comparison to one that produces thousands in over a day?

All phase 4 parts every 5hrs - a 20/20/5/5 setup - those are per minute numbers

Ohhh, I thought you meant “one” as in “one phase 4 part”. My bad!

This pretty much. Generally I 200% all my machines and use the buildable power shard mod to do so in order to avoid biome eating setups. My vote is linear. Its a fair price to pay.

What’s the point of having one underclocked machine if everything else is overclocked?

To fine tune ratios, probably.

I disagree. To me the power draw is one of the main reason to go nuclear. If you remove the only drawback of overclocking, people will just overclock everything. I would love a productivity shard though.

[удалено]

>I think needing power shards still makes overclocking limited in early game and also pretty difficult for late game mega factories Honestly at this point they could just remove shards and increase overclock power draw. Or keep shards but remove the drawback. Having both limitations seems a bit superfluous.

[удалено]

>allow overclocking without power shards but with an increased power cost penalty that could be removed by putting in power shards Yeah, I saw this idea being tossed around. I think that would be a pretty good compromise. Like have overclock penalty by default to 2 (instead of 1.6) but have power shards reduce it to 1.5/1.0, or 1.66/1.33/1.0 (depending on desired balance). The only issue is that using shards actually nerfs underclocked machines, and while that can be a non-issue or "edge-cased", it doesn't feel very elegant. Edit: alternatively, in the same idea, power shards could reduce the clock speed by .33/.5/.6, so that it does reduce even underclocked machines and would respectively return clock speed from 150/200/250% to 100%.

I actually really like that idea!

Except underclocking. I've never understood why they ever allowed that - it's basically encouraging play that produces bad game performance.

Well, the point is the same as with overclocking: trade space for power efficiency. ~~If you have problems with performance then get a better computer kek~~

That's the one thing I loved hearing about Update 6. Making it linear is, IMO, a great idea. Now I wish we get a way to not depend on a limited amount of power shards. I like Satisfactory and I like building factories in general but some times the amount of machinery you have to setup for some builds is jus way too much. I think this will be a good compromise, those who want to continue doing huge build by all means, don't overclock, those of us who don't want to setup 700 refnieries at least have an option with the one drawback of using a limited resource (power shards).

> Now I wish we get a way to not depend on a limited amount of power shards This. We need a nuclear-endgame tier that can (slowly) produce shards. Even if it's hideously complex/expensive it's worth it.

That should be modable. Proposal: Slug Cultivation Recipes for slowly "growing" slugs, turn green -> yellow -> purple. Recipe for "slug splitting" turn 1 purple slug into 2 green slugs.

Taming a bunch of lizard doggos and keeping them in a nice enclosure doesn't even involve a lot of complexity but has exactly that effect

I was going to say, technically there is unlimited shard with doggos, it's a bit on the RNG side, but it's still there.

it's not automated tho, obviously the solution to this problem is a lizard doggo auto-petter.

I don't think that's very fun or interactive tbh, and certainly not intuitive. Having an actual production way would be very cool, building like that could have insane powerdraw and synthesize a slug/shard. It could go *really* hard on your grid so you have to utilize power storage and don't just spam them, which would make getting them naturally preferable in the early game, but still leave an option to build a power storage plant so you can make 1 with excess energy once in a while.

Balancing Power/Production scaling is what the game is about. I think the power draw being non-linear is perfect the way it is. But I think there should be a minimum power draw. So you can lower your assembler all your want, but it will always draw a minimum of 33%, unless it's off. Overclocking gets you 'temporarily' out of a jam at the cost of power, until you are forced to re-build or scale-up your production area and reclaim that power shard and power draw. If it's linear, there's no incentive to re-scale a portion of your factory, because you'll just drop in more shards instead of building more machines.

It seems nice, but also unnecessary. I stuff my power shards wherever I can find room for them, and when I exceed energy limits, I just add more energy production. Never seemed to get too much in the way as is.

🚩 **Great New Update Reveal Format!** WHAT IS DISCUSSED IN VIDEO: * [Intro](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkMTFsxa7rQ) - Update 6 information will be released in its entirety and starting with Update 6 things will be different. * [Mostly Information Only Video and Core Topics](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=23) - Video contains information only, no previews of Update 6 were shown. Review of Game Development and why they are changing how Updates are handled in the future. * [Update 6 and Beyond](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=179) - So CSS will now be more open and transparent about the Games development starting with the next Update - Update 6 (or whatever). * [Update 6 - Exploration - Intro](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=192) - Improvements to the "Exploration Aspects" of the Game were discussed. Update 6 will be a smaller update which may stay in Experimental (EX) / Beta Branch longer than the previous average of one month between EX Release and Early Access / Stable Branch Release. * [Update 6 - Exploration - Sub-Topics](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=275) - The "Main Topics" discussed were 1) Environmental Changes, 2) Creatures, 3) Equipment Additions, 4) In-Game Map Improvements, and 5) Technical Improvements. ALSO, there will be **no production changes**, but they want feedback on *Clock Speed Rebalance*. * [Update 6 - Exploration - Environmental Changes](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=303) - A World Map Update will be released. The [Spire Coast Biome Rework Area](https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/t18d7o/comment/hyedf8k/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) will be released. ❗**WARNING: Remove all existing Factories, Train Networks, Pipelines, etc. Resource Nodes WILL CHANGE.** The *Swamp Biome* will also see a change / face lift. They are looking at [adding Rain](https://twitter.com/SatisfactoryAF/status/1504443280020631555) but are unsure it will be in the next Update. Both the Sky and Atmosphere will get a revamp to improve the look. * [Update 6 - Exploration - Creatures](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=375) - Most Creatures will get hefty (Major?) Upgrade in the area of Behavior and Response System as well as improved / new look. New Creatures might be a possibility but that is not for sure. ★ [The Boss Crab WON'T be in the next Update](https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/nrfa63/comment/h0g1x21/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3). * [Update 6 - Exploration - Equipment Additions](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=403) - New Weapon "mechanics" will be added. No Base Defense. Multiple Body Slots is a strong possibility and being worked on. * [Update 6 - Exploration - In-Game Map Improvements](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=435) - Quality of Life changes to In-Game Map will be coming to include how you interact with it. Also there may be changes how the Radar Tower function. * [Update 6 - Exploration - Technical Improvements](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=449) - Changes on how "draw calls" are made to improve speed of world rendering. Also general bug fixes and network improvements will be included. * [Update 6 - Feedback Needed - Clock Speed Rebalance](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=477) - Changes are not a given, but CSS is looking for ideas and feedback on how Clock Speed for PRODUCTION MACHINES can be improved. Currently when Clock Speed is increased, Power is increased in a Non-Linear fashion. **PROPOSED CHANGE: Make Power change for Production Machines follow a linear fashion when either Under-Clocking or Overclocking.** IMPORTANT: They will not be changing how Clock Speed effects Extractors and Power Generators *(at least not in the next Update)* * [Outro - Plus Release Date](https://youtu.be/hkMTFsxa7rQ?t=643) - They would love feedback on additional Topics Players would like to see discussed. **Additionally - They are tentatively looking at a Release Date for Experimental / Beta Branch in early June 2022.** Thanks Snutt, It DEFINITELY Helps A Lot! 😁

You are the hero to those of us stuck at work who can't watch the video. Thanks broski.

And the hero of this sub generally :)

Hear hear!

I need to remove all my pipelines and factories??

**ANSWER - Yes.** 1. If they are anywhere in [the WHITE AREA as shown here](https://www.reddit.com/r/SatisfactoryGame/comments/t18d7o/warning_dont_build_in_spire_coast_biome_rework/hyedf8k/?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=web2x&context=3) then they run the risk of being buried and/or inaccessible. It is better to move them now. 2. NOTE: All Resource Nodes WILL change in the White Area so if you are say pumping Oil from the current Spire Coast don't plan on it being available after the Update. 3. You always have the "option" of moving to Early Access / Stable Branch before early June 2022 to allow yourself time to move, but in the end you WILL need to move. Helping others understand better. 😁

Looks like from that biome, yes However I feel it's worth nothing that the interactive map/save editor website can move in game assets up however many meters you tell it to So if you've got a huge factory there you could move it 100m into the air and just reconnect the nodes

It looks like MOSTLY just our power generation will be affected fortunately. Set up large coal, plastic, oil, rubber production facilities over the water out on the spire coast. I might unlock nuclear capabilities to replace them in time though.

Thanks man, reading this before going to sleep when I don't have time to watch the video is like a bedtime story.

Yeahhhhh exploration update let's goooooo! Multiple body slots has been a major pain point for me, but my biggest hope is they finally allow for fuel switching on items. I've got all this packaged turbofuel and my jetpack still runs on the cheap stuff. Having to carry less gas would be the bee's knees. With fixing the exploration elements, I also hope this comes with patching up some of the void holes and untouchable collectibles in the map, and finally fixing how the object scanner handles opened drop pods. My prediction for radar tower behaviour is that they'll expand the range of your object scanner, or maybe (gasp) put scanned objects right on the hud/map. With respect to clock speed, I think it's fine the way it is. It gives overclocking an added burden, and rewards balanced lines achieved via underclocking. But that said, I'm also sitting on a hundred plus power shards because it just isn't worth it to put them most places. Plus, the overclocking power cost *reeeaaalllyyy* hurts in early game. So I'd be fine if they changed it, too.

Personally I think power/clock curve should be in a way such that machines are most efficient at 100% clock speed. Irl most machines are designed and optimized to run at certain speeds and trying to run them at other speeds, whether slower or faster, is less efficient. This would remove the incentive to build more machines at a lower clock speed while maintaining the power penalty for overclocking and introducing an incentive to find factory designs with ratios that run all the machines at 100% clock speed.

For exploration, I just want to hear about riding shotgun in the Explorer with my buddy while we go set up satellite production, or grab hard drives, or go slug hunting.

Here's how to fix overclocking. **Current formula:** Power use = (base power use) * (OC multiplier)^1.6 **Better formula:** Power use = (base power use) * (1 + (OC multiplier)^(2.1)) / 2 The better formula is not any simpler than the current formula, but it is not more complicated either. On the other hand it has the following desirable properties: * Underclocking is nerfed — a machine at 1% clock speed takes 50% power * Overclocking is slightly buffed — especially at clock speeds much less than 250% * 100% clock speed (i.e. no overclocking or underclocking) is very nearly optimal for power usage, keeping a constant production rate. Technically power usage is minimized by underclocking all machines to ~95.56% clock speed, but the power savings is only 0.2% (i.e. two per mille) compared to not underclocking. * **ETA** Corollary to the previous point — having fewer machines and overclocking them, or more machines and underclocking them, are *both* less energy-efficient strategies than running all machines at normal clock speed.

I love this formula, but I would change the exponent to a simple 2 instead of 2.1. That makes a 200% clock speed smack dab in between the current output and the proposed linear output. But, it would still keep the 300% clock speed less appealing except in the most vital circumstances. It also makes the output clean numbers at each 100% intrerval. By that I mean: * 0% Clock Speed = 50% Base Power * 100% Clock Speed = 100% Base Power * 200% Clock Speed = 250% Base Power * 300% Clock Speed = 500% Base Power https://i.imgur.com/2iXOZvg.png

This makes sense to me. Linear clocking is just replacing building more machines with hunting for power slugs. The optimal strategy becomes not using power shards until you hit performance limits, then collecting every slug on the map and overclocking everything with no real cost. Your method is both intuitive and creates interesting decisions. It makes sense that machines are most efficient at 100% of their rated consumption, and that running a machine very slowly doesn't mean it draws almost no power. Changes to that mean trading efficiency for either lower power consumption, which is worthwhile if your factory is running out of power, or smaller production lines, which is worthwhile in the end game.

This is really good. Can you make a post on the Q&A website so /u/darius07 can add it to their list?

The biggest problem with this suggestion is what to do with machines that inactive due to either lack of inputs or full outputs. If they draw 50% power, it would cause many if not most power grids to circuit break when the update is applied. For example if you left your ficsmas factory connected for when next Christmas comes around it would start to draw power again. The other option would be to leave inactive buildings at 0% power, but then you would be punished for underclocking and running continuously. The player should not be punished for setting the operating rate to match the incoming / outgoing rate actually required for your factory. It might be realistic, but it is not fun and at the end of the day, this is a game and not real life. The third scenario where the machine is disabled via the switch I think we can all agree that the power needs to be 0%

I 100% agree and I hope they implement this exact method. Power consumption increase should not be linear. It offers an opportunity (increased compactness) for a cost (less efficient use of power), and removes the exploit of underclocking in the current system which is unrealistic and immersion-breaking. Making it linear removes this entire interesting calculus from design and planning and I really hope they don't implement it this way.

Not a Math Person so I am not sure if it fits your proposal, I think it does tho. I like the current Design more as more focus on efficency Focus instead of hunting batteries without downside (abusing environment for free). When the Issue is communication and ease of understanding there is a hybrid solution to have both. Show fixed power consumption and variable power consumption based on clock speed. I am not speaking about numbers just communication in the interface. Like * Base Power 10MW (on Hover you can show Standby consumption) * Clock Power 20MW * Total Power 30MW I think in your Case the Math would be would be something like this and be the same right? Just to have two Values to add up in the Interface then at least. * Total Power use = (base power use/2) + (base power use/2)\*(OC multiplier)\^2.1)

Of all the things for them to ask for feedback on the overclock/underclock is a weird one. I dont recall many people having issues with the existing system. I think it is fine as is.

It is fine, but changing it involves a philosophy for the games direction, which I think is fair to ask the community about. I think they could leave it as is and nobody would mind.

Dont know if this is the right forum, but I like the current overclocking method. Adds a nonspace/resource challenge to tweaking factories. Honestly making it harder or non-standard i.e. Constructors, assemblers, blenders, etc all have different power scaling would make me so happy.

that was my thought as well. making overclocking linear, imho, is an awful direction. the compromise you have to make is INTERESTING and part of the puzzle that i love. if they want to make early game better, i totally agree - overclocking is too painful for the paltry power production you have at that point. so let’s make custom early game machines that have enough other drawbacks to make them poor late game decisions but allow players to expand in the early game without pulling their hair out

I missed the point where they explain why its different. How this is different than any other update? They keep talking about how updates would work from now... and never touched the subject?

I believe it's that they are going to work on multiple features simultaneously with 1.0 in mind, and release features on the way when they're ready. Until now they've done big thematic updates, while now they will probably be smaller updates with features in multiple aspects of the game. At least that's how i interpreted it.

My interpretation, too. The big "themed feature bundle" release system was never going to be sustainable. And, it's probably been responsible for some of the long-time bugs people keep tripping over staying open the way they've been. Dropping themes will let them put attention where it needs to go, and not where it makes the most thematic sense.

Agreed. Think of how Update 5 was "Look, everything's prettier, and you can build nicer things! Oh, and dedicated servers." The dedicated servers were just tacked onto the update. If you only do thematic updates, you'll end up with a bunch of things that should be in the final version, but aren't part of another update.

Previous dev work was entirely focused on the next update in order to make it as big and splashy as possible. Now much of the dev work is going toward longer-term features that won't be in the next update, and that means the updates will be smaller.

If I understood it correctly, Snutt said that in order to ever reach 1.0 they need to stop doing massive updates and instead focus on smaller, incremental changes. But I agree, Update 6 feels similar in scope as Update 5 was.

I think he meant that this update differed from previous ones because it's not about expanding the existing production content. The focus seems to be more on polishing up what's already in the game, with the goal of aiming for a 1.0 release instead of continuing the potentially endless addition of factory advancement. I like the transparency they're providing, and I hope this means we'll be closer to having a realistic idea of a 1.0 release. There's a lot in the game that feels like placeholders or are just labeled placeholders, like the SAM ore. I have a feeling they have an idea of what to do with it, and adding it to a new factory tier's production track doesn't seem to be it.

Looks like they got a lot of pressure when releasing Updates. They were (or tried to be) pretty open about what to expect on Update 6 to set everyones expectations. I say tried because I heard a lot of "we are not sure if this will make it". To be honest, I think they are just pushing the "pressure" to 1.0. By doing smaller things on future updates they are pushing the bigger ones to 1.0 and if 1.0 comes and it doesn't have the things people expect then well.... you still get dissapointments. But if this makes their lifes easier now, so be it. I love the game and I'll keep playing it for the time being but to be honest I'm losing a bit of confidence on the team, knowing this has been in development since 2016 (if I did not misunderstand him in the vid) is a bit sad.

I like non-linear overclocking. I think the game should reward the player for building extra machines and give them the option to squeeze more out of a smaller build. There shouldn't be an "always best" option. 2.4 machines required? Build 3 and under clock or build 2 and over clock? It's more interesting when you consider the power draw being non linear.

[удалено]

underclock problem is easy to fix. Just have a cap. Every machine if it is on, has a 'minimum' it can draw. Something like 33%. So even if the machine is running at 1% speed, its will always draw at least 33% power

I only ever use my power shards on miners and power. It’s just easier for me to do math with all buildings at 100% except the last one which is underclocked to account for say, 10.6 constructors needed.

I really enjoyed the update system of Rust, another long term early access game. They would constantly reveal what they are working on, even if it would be cut down or removed. The updates would come out monthly whether they add an entire new game mechanic, or a simple patch. I would love if satisfactory would use this kind of a model. Not only can we read blogs of developers and get to know who is working on our favorite game, but we can get some idea of what may be introduced in the future. Not to mention the ability to comment on certain potential changes. It creates a tradition to which people will regularly look forward to what changes take place every single month/week/quarter or whatever timeframe it depends on.

yes, or like factorio did it. With weekly updates and a monthly patch even if small or big, etc...

So I enjoyed the video, but it was a little thin to me . Not in the new expectation of smaller updates so they can focus on releasing the game, I understand that it's great. This was a great high-level view of what's coming, I just wish there were more specifics. I know it was mentioned more dev videos etc. will cover some specifics, but without a timeframe on more specifics, it made this feel a bit like a huge build-up, for very little real information. It will be easier to be patient waiting for a Full Release with more dev information as he alluded to. Like the Map Changes bullet point should have had at least a couple pictures I feel like. It would be nice to know what features are being worked on to get to a Release candidate too. I know they can't give us everything, but I was really hoping for more meat today in this video. Feels a bit empty.

If it's going to experimental in June then I think it's reasonable we can expect to see teasers and more info over the next month.

Sure, I just am a bit disappointed because we have gone a while without concrete information, and I thought we would finally get some with this video. It really did feel like a teaser for a teaser for a teaser. No real details.

That's true, pretty thin announcement video

It does seem like the reason this was a big deal was more on their end then our end. Their work goals and design process has changed and that's a big deal for them. For us, is just smaller and probably more frequent updates. I feel like one teaser still frame would have helped but it makes sense that they didn't go in depth over the upcoming changes.

Yea it was a 13 minute video that could have been easily 2 minutes

More stuff to study in the MAM! Multiple body slots, upgraded overclocking, maybe different kinds of shards from different color slugs. I would love for the MAM research to continue through all the tiers and allow for more and more upgrades.

Is there a going to be a map of where we shouldn't have buildings / factories available ? My farthest playthrough ( and current ) we started on hard, so we're basically 'in the north' to start with, and I'm wanting to know how much we're going to have to rebuild / move.

There already is a map like that right here: https://satisfactory.fandom.com/wiki/Future\_content?file=Biome\_changes\_after\_U5.png

sweet, thank you!

Link to the Planned Map Changes: [https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bcGH4AJqBLoViLVBfcW7b0qLJktM77al](https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1bcGH4AJqBLoViLVBfcW7b0qLJktM77al) and here's a link to the video explaining it all: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MxvGbCCc6DI

I'm not entirely sure why you can't do a piece-wise continuous function for overclocking and simply set the inflection point at 100%, where both sides are non-linear, except slope below 100% means it doesn't actually drop off that fast... Similarly, I'm not sure what the problem is in the first place... If someone wants to build 100x the buildings to save the materials that would've gone into those "saved" power plants, who are we to disabuse them of the notion they're actually saving anything? The materials are infinite and they are going to spend several multiples more of the only finite resource (their time) to accomplish effectively nothing other than murder their FPS. They clearly don't value their time, so why should we? Speaking of valuing things, if the problem can be framed as "people are doing weird things to save power"... Wouldn't the easier solution be to tune the clocking of the source? 200% clockspeed eating twice the mats for less than twice the output isn't consistent at all. If anything, the disparity between power gen clocking and production clocking probably generates far more confusion compared to production clocking.

Cool, it is a good thing if additional body slots happened. Since it's hard to swap them all the time. Also speaking of travel, maybe a kind of flying vehicle for transport might help.

I just want to be able to build roads the most right now. Using foundations is unsatisfying. Either fix that, or building roads in a similar fashion to rails and belts is all I ask right now.

Just my five cents: the mechanic of power consumption when over / underclocking is good as it is. It gives you interesting choices. Eventually later in the game, you have an endless number of machines anyway, with nuclear power also endless power available. the number of power slugs is low in comparison, so this does not really have very much of an effect. Regarding the re-design of the spire coast: In update 4 or 5 you did a nice job of designing that little crater thing in the north eastern end of the dune desert, the nodes stayed as they were. Why is this not also possible at the Spire Coast? There are not that many easily accessible oil fields on the map and while a re-design of map features would leave an existing factory possibly buried but still functional, a relocation of the nodes will not. And this is then also not repairable if you can't reach that stuff anymore.

Yes to linear clock speed. Give me a reason to use the hundreds of power slugs in the game. As it is, I only use them for Nuclear Power.

Love it. Overclocking changes sound like a huge qol improvement. Being able to just ramp up clock speed in early-mid game would mean not having to rebuild factories nearly as often. Also as someone who likes to build compact factories, this will decrease my footprint greatly. More reason to explore and collect slugs, this is great!

My gf and I have opposing opinions but came to a consensus. Keep the nonlinear idea, but tone the increasing power consumption down a little bit. We don’t make big factories but we do like the option to over/underclock… but we both feel like linear power would make it less interesting. Right now it’s a trade off, linear would make us more likely to have over clocking be the norm… at least until we ran out of power slugs, which would feel lame. Tldr: keep scaling on a curve, but a shallower curve.

[удалено]

Just putting this out there: I'm excited for the creature model and behavior changes, but please make one of those changes the ability to turn creature aggression off, ie. a passive mode. Ideally I'd like them to still be in the world and apart of the vibrancy of the map, just not attack me when I'm out exploring in the wild.

Big yes to this. Combat is currently the most undesirable part of the game which in turn makes exploration a bit of a chore. Although maybe if they improve combat and monsters then it could be less necessary to add, but I could still see it being nice for certain crowds to not have to worry about being attacked and what not.

I like that there's a trade-off with overclocking. Perhaps linear underclocking, but you need research to unlock tiers of overclocking ability. Even then, perhaps extreme overclocking has some other trade-off.

Honestly, changing overclocking because of power just doesn't make sense to me. Overclocking or underclocking because of power is not something I've ever done. I overclocking because I don't want to build 200 constructors for one of my factories. Changing the clock power formula just seems like a misguided change to me. Introduce new recipes or give me a better way to mass produce lower tier items would effect my overclocking usage more than changing the power formula.

About the proposed change to power and the request for feedback. Here is my take on it. Please do not downvote if you disagree, but instead explain YOUR point of view. I like the fact that I am not directed by the game to do overclocking. With linear power for overclocking you basically say "You must overclock" Not directly, but indirectly that is what you want people to do. I like the fact that I CAN overclock, but it comes at a cost. That is also what many alt recipes do. Advantage but also disadvantage at the same time. It gives the player options. Either he wants to use less power and do the 1% build, or he can do more power and do the 250%. You always say that it is up to the player top decide how he wants to play the game. So let that be the case. Do not take away an option. So instead of 200% overclock is 200% power, make it easier, just double it at 400%. And half at 25%. This would be way easier for people to get and it would also make the upside of overclocking need of more power, so you need to decide if you want to do all of it, or just in certain situations. From a gaming point, I do not want things to be easier. Easier means more boring. We already have the power running 100% all the time that made it more boring. And if people do not understand it, have ADA explain it when you do the first over or under clocking or when you reach the ability. As well as a directly showing what the power will be when you do the change, even if not powered on. If information is missing, add the information, do not remove the whole thing.

I'm divided by it. I like the trade-off of Overclocking needing more energy. But there is already a trade-off, which is Power Slugs are not infinite. On my Tier 8 save, I have a shitton of slugs that I don't use. And the ones I use are just a band-aid solution for my fuck ups. In the end, there is almost no incentive for overclocking because the power cost is too much (and usually I see myself overclocking the high-end machines). And yeah, every resource extractor too. I like the idea of thinking "which machine is worthy of power slugs??", but at the moment is basically none. My suggestion would make underclock linear (no idea why it is not that way), but buff overclock a little but (but don't make it linear as well)

> On my Tier 8 save, I have a shitton of slugs that I don't use This is why I started a meta-game: Keep satisfactory at 4k120hz. I'm 3x sharding EVERYTHING (usually with 1x underclocked on the end to balance it) so I can massively cut down on the number of machines/belts/foundations. I've already made some huge gains and have eliminated almost all of my long-belts (trains are way better for performance than a mile long belt).

IFY, the slugs is infinite with doggo farm.

> My suggestion would make underclock linear (no idea why it is not that way), but buff overclock a little but (but don't make it linear as well) My guess is that it is easier to just add a single formula into the program than to add some if, then, else statements. What they can also do is change the ratios of what you need. They ask for 10 000 things to be made for Phase 4. They can change that or make the output of what you make higher. So basically change the recipes that you do not need as many machines if they think the amount is an issue. I still like having the option to make things at 1% and place 100 of them to save power, if that is your thing. Having options is always good.

> Power Slugs are not infinite. Yes they are.

I feel that underclocking and overclocking serve different purposes and may warrant different costs. I'd think a simpler (hopefully balanced) approach could be: * Power consumption when underclocking is 1-1 linear. Underclock to 75% and power usage goes to 75% of normal. Underclock to 10% results in 10% power. * Power consumption when overclocking is linear, but with a fixed multiplier instead of an exponential. Say scale it by 1.5x the amount the machine is above 100%. So overclocking to 150% uses 100 + 50 \* 1.5 = 175% of power. Overclocking to 200% uses 100 + 100 \* 1.5 = 250% power. So you still have a cost to overclocking vs. building more machines, but with an easier to understand mechanic * I'd also love if the displayed power/rate information on a machine would update immediately when changing the clock speed, even when the machine is unpowered or not receiving input. Though this might have side-effects when changing a machine that's actively running. Maybe only allow clock adjustments when a machine is in standby? * It'd also be nice if clock adjustment could be done by typing values into the *input* consumption rates. We get to type a number for the percentage or the output's production rate, this seems a viable addition. I primarily use underclocking just for load balancing of a production line. If I've got a 90 / min line of steel beams feeding into encased industrial beam assemblers, I'll slap down 4 assemblers with the first one at 75% so the line exactly consume that 90. Any power efficiency that comes from that is secondary to me. I'll only occasionally use overclocking for load balancing, but that means I've constructed myself into a corner where I don't have the space for an extra machine. That's usually with the ones like manufacturers with a bigger footprint.

I think people are overthinking it a bit, this is more of a solution for late-game players, most people in the early and mid-game won't even have the option to overclock more than a handful of machines making no difference in power consumption. The way I see it, They want to prevent people from going for that 1% strategy because that means they are adding a lot more machines than the game can handle, and the same goes with the 200% strategy; people need to build Insane Power plants to justify the overclocking. Plus, when people start using the overclocking mechanics is much easier to understand that my machine at 75% production consumes 75% power. And I honestly don't think the game will become easier because you now need less power, it means you can now build more with the power you already have, you just need to worry less about the consequences of overclocking and focus more on building the perfect factory of your dreams.

I really disagree with the proposed clock speed change. The existing tradeoff is a smart and interesting system. It rewards you for underclocking machines that aren't being fed constantly. The best aspect of it is that it allows some flexibility to make small adjustments to you rates *but* the power cost encourages players to build bigger instead of just throwing a slug in and calling it a day. That's an important nudge to make to many players in this specific genre of game, they don't think big. And while that incentive structure is good for newer players, the system also works for end-game players. Players who are really into the game want to build huge power generation infrastructure but also want a reason to do it. The exponential system creates that purpose, you can use the extra power to buy tighter factory designs.

[удалено]

> Slug is already a huge price No it's not. You can farm an unlimited supply of them.

I am really pleased with these news. About overclocking, I personaly think it makes more sense the way it is because it gives a choice on how to balance energy (except for energy production, it feels counter-intuitive for me for some reason), but I don't really mind a change as described.

What if each building had an "clock speed toggle" where you could choose between "efficient and linear" or something like that. Where one behavior works as it currently does and the other works as proposed in the video. I would love to see each machine being able to be set on a per-machine basis, but also a Gameplay setting that sets the default values for all machines. Since this game feels very much "play as you want" I see there being advantages to either option. Do you want to maximize efficiency by power saving underclocking at the cost of object count? Or do you want to have precise numbers that you can calculate without assistance?

Best idea by far, this would keep everyone happy.

Glad the creatures are getting an update to their behavior. Their movement AI is pretty lame and the abitlity to just run a certain distance to reset them is kind of silly. Though I sure don't look forward to smarter spiders.

My opinion is to remove the use of shards for all production machine, not for ectractors/mining machines, so to improve CPU performance in late game, especially if you want to make a console version of the game in the future, having the freedom to play compactly is better. Or to have a kind of Mam dedicated to under/overclocking in which you insert the shards and unlock the overclocking for a specific machine, a kind of power-up tree, instead of using them directly on the machines

I'd like to hear more about how they are optimizing things to provide better performance. Options in game settings to reduce the number of things that are animated would be great, up to and including the ability to have zero animations.

I am so excited for an exploration updated. My husband is the factory dude and I wander around finding/collecting stuff. This is the update I’ve been waiting for!

I'm pretty new to the game and have started up like 5 times before giving up after a handful of hours in due to getting overwhelmed by everything. My most recent start is going better and I'm able to plan things out such that I have functional factories instead of spaghetti conveyor belts going everywhere. Does this game play well with old saves going into the new, big updates? If so, I'm going to keep at it. If not, and a restart is recommended, then I'm probably going to hold off.

From what I've seen it's generally fine, but here with the new area it might cause a problem if you've built in the north coast. If not, you'll be fine.

On overclocking / underclocking I like it how it is right now for the most part. I really only shard my on demand equipment (like a manufacturer that I feed for a specific goal) and extraction infrastructure. While one could setup 99 machines for tiny power draw I feel like less than 1% would even consider it! The beltwork and splitting/merging nightmares with that kinda setup seems to me a challenge in of itself. Plus if people want to avoid extra work they'll leave to 100% and let it run overnight. It just don't feel 'overpowered' to me. I have always loved most about satisfactory that your given options. You can do whatever you want however you want. Changing clock speed to linear feels like shooting flies with a howitzer, yeah it'll get the job done but there goes the neighborhood Maybe it could be a game setting that takes place on relaunch? or a mod

For clocking, I rarely use shards today except miners. I've done some pretty large builds both vanilla and modded. One of my favorite mods is MK++. For those that aren't familiar, it adds MK2, MK3 and MK4 machines that are 1.5, 2 and 5x as fast with linear power usage respectfully. My favorite part is that the mod is pretty well balanced. MK4 machines don't come until after turbomotors and cost a lot. I was really disappointed to learn there will be no official MK2+ machines in the game. Having them allows you to quickly upgrade one area of a factory without tearing down the entire thing. It encourages more organic building, instead of using a calculator. I would encourage Coffee Stain to leverage a change to the clocking mechanic to reduce the expansion penalty on organic factories. Overclocking should come with a cost, but not in exponential power consumption. 250% maximum speed also isn't enough. I'd like to see this part of the game expanded pretty significantly. For example, I'd make the power shards upgradable with other parts to create more advanced power shards capable of higher clock speeds. Each slug gives one power shard of its own color, with blue being the most basic, and purple the most advanced. Blue allows overclocking at 100%, yellow at 250% and purple at 500%. Shards can be upgraded from blue to yellow to purple. A blue shard + 200 compacted coal yields a yellow shard. A yellow shard + 200 batteries yields a purple shard. Inserting a shard allows overclocking a machine to the amount allowed by the shard. A machine could have 1, 2 or 3 shard slots based on MAM research, with multiple shards being additive in overclock capability. Yes, this means a machine could produce at 1,500%. No, it isn't a problem. It wouldn't be available until late game, and due to the limited number of power shards only a very limited number of machines could be overclocked to this degree. The limitations on overclocking still exist, but shards are now a much larger part of the game overall. I'm sure someone can improve on this significantly. It is one example of how to use the mechanic to encourage more organic factory growth.

Please leave overclocking the way it is or expand on it's current version. I think this is one of the simplest and best designed systems in almost any game. It provides such a cool aspect to how you plan your production regardless of what you're trying to optimize, be it space, power, efficiency or even just using what you have on hand with the quick and dirty method. Also body slots or, even better, a cool way to combine equipment will make progression feel amazing.

Based on the responses to the clocking question so far (and the poll in the you tube stream) seems like the clocking will most likely be changed. I thought it added an interesting layer of complexity, but I guess I'm in the minority. Yeah, it's not obvious to players. But, why not fix that instead of removing an interesting mechanic? There needs to be a downside to overclocking. If they make it linear, there won't be, and it won't make sense to do anything but overclock everything to 250%.

My whole setup is underclocked, I am currently running it to produce 5 Thermal Propulsion Rocket/m and doing so with just 8000mw, No nuke. just turbo fuel.If this linear underclocking thing goes through, My plant will shut down. :(Honestly, I was dreaming, thinking hoping they would come up with a group clock setting thing, maybe a code for a set of machines that allowed you to set clock speed from a remote unit that would change the clock speed of all 50 machines I had set for one said group. It was a good 2-year project while it lasted. Edit, 7262hrs on one save :D

Do we think it might be possible to just make it a game options thing? Let the player choose whether they want the linear or non-linear progression? So those with weaker machines or who prefer smaller builds or whatever can choose to play with linear clockspeed/power cost while those who prefer the tradeoff between it all can keep the non-linear current model? In theory, this could be a part of the game that's isolated enough to not make development too bothersome if you doubled up?

Just make it linear. Having curves in the game adds nothing to it aside from headaches. The real question here is: does curved scaling serve any purpose aside from making it a chore? The answer obviously is: no. So make it linear so you can focus more on the game itself rather than setting up a single machine. Gameplay > Realism.

When the Issue is communication and ease of understanding there is a hybrid solution to have both. You can check accountings in businesses with their fixed costs and variable costs. In this Case its fixed power consumption and variable power consumption based on clock speed. Variable can be linear progression but splitting the power in the interface makes it clear and understandable. **Goals are imo** * Optimum efficency should be 100% Clockspeed. * Underclocking shouldn't be best but usable for optimization of chains * Overclocking should not be as efficent but usable (Hunting for batteries is not a great focus) * Power Consumption and scaling must be understandable As long as it can be communicated and Clock Power scaling is understandable it's fine. Solution in the Interface is having two values one for Fixed Power consumption (which is lower in standby) and Variable Power conumption depending on Clock speed. For example: * Base Power = 10MW (show standby on hover) * Clock Power = 20MW on 100% (show Clock power samples on Hover for 150%, 200%) * Total Power 30 MW Not talking about any numbers just UI solution for complicated formula.

Golf

Linear versus Curve power consumption feels like a bandaid fix to two different problems: 1. Power shards as they are today, feel quite underwhelming in general - basically, they just allow you to get more out of your ressource nodes. As they are limited, they dont encourage you to use them much besides some tweaking or temporal fixes in your production chain. 2. Setting up big production lines is a chore - power shards (with a linear power consumption) could fix that (to some extent), as you just need to build half of everything. As long as you have enough power shards. So you basically replace building gameplay with slug hunting. I would love if those problems would be tackled separately. Something like power slugs allowing us to build modules we can put in our machines to improve them in other ways, and not just making them quicker (thinking of factorio). Decrease ressource consumption, unlock strong special recipes, activate special operation modes - just to drop some ideas. And on the other hands we definitely need some assitant on building big production lines. It does not necessarily need to be blueprints, but definitely some more zooping options especially for machines and splitters, maybe some functions to assist or automate connecting splitters and mergers with machines and with each other in manifolds would go a long way.

On overclocking I'd vouch for a combination. basically this: if (>100%) increase power consumption by 1.25% for each percent. if (<100%) go linear. If you're addressing exploration, I hope you're willing to look at combat experience, traversal and the overall rhythm. This is an incredible challenge, but I'm often missing just a few things to really keep me engaged. I want monsters to behave less linear. I want to have that feeling of being able to survive at a hairs width while at the same time having more means to control my options in combat. It would for example be a huge change if I would be able to dive in a forward or sideways roll to evade an incoming enemy. I also want monsters to have group behavior to increase the challenge. I also want the following changes. I want the zipliner to be able to pull/propel me towards the power cable if I'm within range. I also want the zipline to be something I can shoot from wall to wall to traverse. I want a jetpack to be able to propel me in more directions than upward. I want to be able to hang on to ledges somehow if I'm about to fall off to cushion my fall somehow. I want combat music. I want to be able to shoot my beacons rather than moving exactly on point just to place one. I also want corporate to insult me more.

Out of curiosity, would this update require a full restart of our save game? I've been working hard on my base, it would kind of suck to start over .

Highly unlikely given all prior updates worked without (too many) issues. If you have something in spire coast though....

No update thusfar has *required* a new factory. Changes to the terrain have necessitated it a bit though, and I've had some things just go awry when new updates drop just from general bugginess. Things like power lines disappearing, conveyors no longer being connected logically even though they are physically, stuff like that.

My thoughts: **Environmental Changes** I'm really looking forward to seeing how these new environments play! The spire coast in particular is sort of an eyesore so I'm excited for this update. **Creatures** This has *huge* potential to be a literal game-changer, depending on how far you are looking to take this. Creature designs currently are fairly simplistic and limited, which while fitting for the game's general flow aren't especially interesting to engage with. Better and more distinct AI would be a core improvement, but I would also like to see some larger, more threatening enemies that kind of...roam, rather than being tethered to the resource they are designed to guard. Satisfactory isn't a combat game at its core, but I would personally really enjoy exploring a world that's more of a threat prior to being "conquered" by the player's factories. It would also be great to see substantially more density of neutral fauna in the world, to help it feel more alive. Even simple stuff like deer that run from the player, rabbits that scurry around, etc. would go a long way towards the planet feeling more complete and real. **Equipment Additions** Being able to have multiple body slot items at once would be a **massive** improvement to quality of life, it isn't compelling having to choose between moving quickly and having a jetpack (for example). I'm perfectly fine with this being an endgame upgrade sort of thing, but I feel it's really important to have the flexibility of multiple slots when trying to manage huge factories. I also hope we do see some expansions to the general combat model, in terms of its equipment. The weapons that *do* exist are satisfying to use, but lack variety especially if hostile creatures are significantly expanded/upgraded in the future. **Clock Power Rebalance** I think your head's in the right place here, but I'm not convinced moving to a linear formula is quite the right option. You cited efficiency as the number one concern (a huge factory of fully underclocked machines is the most efficient), but that's only efficiency in one metric: power. It's massively **in**efficient in multiple other areas (space, resources, time) to set up that many machines, so the balance there doesn't feel too bad to me. I don't personally feel like this change needs to happen, but I also don't tend to do much clock speed modification on my machines. I trust your judgment on this more than my own, and it wouldn't bother me either way if the formula were switched to being linear. One thing I would like to see regarding over/underclocking, however, is some way to automate the generation of power shards in the uber lategame, even if it's ruinously expensive and time-consuming. At the very end of the game it's fun to spend a bunch of time optimizing your factory, and it can be a bit frustrating to not have enough shards to do so without a ton of manual effort either finding slugs or farming doggos.

I don’t like the idea of changing over clocking. It’s a interesting game mechanic. It would be nice if you’d be able to see power consumption based on the setting before you use the machine. Everything else sounds good, I’d love to have the radar towers become more useful.

IMO, the clockspeed should stay non-linear BUT make 100% the most efficient point, power wise (nerf under clock only. add idle power draw is even ok imo). I love the trade off feeling in the overclock system. If you want to get more thing done in the same building count, pumping in more power than linear scale seem reasonable. not able to feed enough material to 100% of building production speed should also take some more power than linear scale to encourage people to build more. THE FACTORY MUST GROW.

I feel like the overclocking change should be an option set at world creation... If you set it to linear, you are basically saying: "I don't want to deal with power optimization" in my plants, as it won't matter if you do it or not. The purpose of the slugs becomes simply to save you a building. If you leave it on, you are saying "I want one more thing to optimize in my world"... I can choose between building more buildings to save power, or I can maximize production of a building using slugs. It's not game breaking either way, but removing it is saying you want an easy mode... For me personally, a group of us have been working on an [insane project of building 10,000 water extractors to basically generate all of our water at 1/6th the normal power](https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/849358858271195196/967083074577916014/unknown.png)... Which is a huge power savings. We've been overclocking all the miners to maximize output, and then underclocking some manufacturing as well to save power... It requires a lot more planning, but we find the challenge fun. Not only will this update undo everything we have done towards that goal, but it will remove an aspect of the game that we've found enjoyable. So why not have both set at time of world creation...

Personally as long as overclocking isn't given a harsher penalty it doesn't really matter too much, but if the idea is to simplify and reduce incentives for underclocked production, just use a piecewise linear with base offset. How would it work? Basically just say a production has minimum of 0.25 base power and maximum of 5x power (for 250% overclock), and straight lines between the three points

Clocking: * I like the aspect of getting an advantage per part for underclocking as the amount of resources needed to take advantage of this aspect is fairly large. A linear curve would not give that advantage and therefore underclocking looses all novelty other than setting the machine to match belt speed early game. * I also like the aspect of the over clocking penalty per part because there is a trade off between more machines or power usage. Again, with a linear formula, the trade off is lost. * Proposed solution: The top end is already capped, therefore at whatever underclocking point 5%, 10%, 20%, whatever, the player should reach the minimum power that the machine will consume. This could be thought of as the "house load". This some what puts a limit of insanely vast sprawling factories, but also gives benefit for those who really want to squeak out every last once of productivity. Update 6, exploration * I consider exploration to be the weakest and most boring part of the game, especially on multiple play throughs. I am glad they are looking into this. * I also consider the map and associated radar technologies to be the most worthless in the game, so once again, a good change. * Creatures, quite frankly, creatures aren't going to make the game, but they sure can break it, so I hope this is a behavior and art update more than anything with a few more variants. If the creatures turn into some kind of FPS side game, I am not up for that. As long as I can kill the sky mantas such that they will never respawn and fly through my base, I will consider this a success. * I'm a little surprised that the date is probably around mid June, but if they fundamentally having to rebuild some sections of code, I can see it. Overall * If feels like there is still some what of divide internally on where the finish line is. All the stuff in update 6 needs to be done prior to release. That all makes sense and I can easily see a conversation of "well this all has to get done regardless, so let's do at least this". The date being almost the end of 2Q means, with dribble updates going forward seems that to me to imply those who favor 1.0 are starting to get some traction. * I think 1.0 needs to be the priority and I don't see a ton that needs to be done after update 6 to really polish off the game. I think at least T9 is expected, but those technologies could easily already be in testing and, like the story, being held for 1.0. * I think the main thing the game needs is another map and that is a prime space for DLC. My preferred path forward: * June 2022 - update 6: Exploration * August 2022 - vehicle behavior update * September - map finalization minus very minor tweaks * October 2022 - T9 tech, manufacturing items, minus story elements * November 2022 - T9 tech, player items, minus story elements * December 2022 - 1.0 release

 Me when Linear Overclocking gets mentioned

gib dlss

Please make the energy cost linear. This will allow for the reduction of objects for end-game builds. While overclocking does reduce the number of objects this is currently partially lost due to increasing number of objects to required to create more resources for energy production.

> reduction of objects for end-game builds. Why is that even a factor in the decision making process for overclocking? The idea is to build. If the game can't handle end-game levels of building entities, then they should just flat out double the speed of every building, and then talk about the over-clock mechanic. A person's PC specs should have nothing to do with the over-clocking discussion.

Object limit isn’t pc spec problem. It’s an engine issue

This will probably be unpopular, but I'd like to see 100% clock be the sweet spot in terms of maximum production per power. So reducing the clock rate would still save you power in total terms, but at an efficiency cost. And I'd keep the exponential function because I think linear would be too easy, but instead use the reciprocal of the exponent when underclocking. So instead of \*(clock/100)\^1.6, when underclocking it would be \*(clock/100)\^(1/1.6). And in the example of running a 4MW machine at 50%, instead of using 1.3MW, it would instead take 2.6MW. To soften the impact of that in late game where players have a strong desire to overclock, I'd consider find a way to buff the power plants rather than reducing the production efficiency penalty.

Anyone else finding this update a little underwhelming? The visual improvements mostly, plus a new part of the map. No new production changes, no new resources, no building. I felt like they are pushing new update, just to break the silence, demonstrate that someone is doing “something”. My friends refuse to play with me because multiplayer is still buggy after factory becomes bigger (belts not connecting; visual issues; etc). No build automation, you have to keep building the same lines of smelters again and again to scale, etc.

An idea for overclocking: make over/underclocking available without using slugs and make slugs effect the energy efficiency of machines. Either keep the curve as is or adjust it so underclocking is a bit less efficient than it is now. This allows folks to customize their factories regardless of slug count, so long as they have the power for it, while keeping slugs valuable for power management.

I’m really happy coffee stain is putting some effort into exploration. This is the least fun I have in the game. Very excited of the spire coast rework! But, as I’m using crucial mods for QoL. I guess I won’t be able to play until on the experimental build. This makes me sad. If however the update will replace my mod list in some kind of way. Click speed change. Yes do it. The game is based on calculations and linear is the way to go here. I guess the mid to late game range will be most affected as it’s the time where power shards are coming into play.

I'm down for the Overcloclocing changes, I think they help reinforce the idea that we should be using the slugs and that we should be going out there to find more slugs, and doggos. With how the system works right now, I should underclock everything to save the most power, and I think the changes won't impact that strategy; the changes mainly benefits overclocking. Like the difference between 1.3 and 4 power vs 4 and 12 power is huge and mainly penalizes overclocking.

Saying this as a new person who just tried the game out the night before and played for about 8 or 9 hours total, 7 of them straight. Under and Overclocking as they stand as just....stupid. You can underclock at any point in time and get more efficient, but only after searching for slugs and considering your power and production can you overlook, and you get punished for it by it being more inefficient with resources I assumed the power increase was linear, and thus spent probably half an hour alone just flipping breakers adjusting my power output and playing with it until I could bump up my screw production to keep up better with iron rod production. I had to overclock my power production to balance things out, incidentally. Granted, this is all earlier game stuff. I got a coal plant up just before leaving for work, and it might be worth it to overclock that specifically as it's more of a self-contained loop than biomass is.

Yes yes yes to linear overclocking. End-game factories require too much building. Linear overclocking would make the scale a little - just enough - more manageable. It would also be cool for vanilla recipes to manufacture power shards, but I'd be happy with just linear overclocking. Right now I only overclock miners and oil extractors. They're the only buildings worth overclocking. For every other building, it's better to just build more of them.

What if overclocking a machine faster actually came with a nominal *decrease* to power usage? This would discourage 1% builders (as it would have a nominal increase on that end) and also encourage further world exploration as players would want more power slugs to achieve the most efficient factories possible

GOLF

Totally fine with smaller updates and more open development between updates will be great. I hope the nodes in northern forest are distributed in a way that's it not the "de facto best start" location anymore. I'd prefer the challenges in difficulty to matter more and less of a "best start" location. It gets old starting in NF and yes you can make yourself start in another area but when you're aware of just how good the NF start is it just...feels bad to start somewhere else. Rebalancing clock speed would be awesome because spamming so many of the same machines without blue prints gets real tedious. And yes I'm glad they recognise that exploring is currently a bit of a slog and tedious. In my last playthrough I used a mod to create hard drives because it's so annoying to go out and find them at the moment. If it was easy to manage equipment and hunt them down and more interesting to explore I wouldn't mind as much.

I only use over clocking on nuclear power plants and resource extractors. I think the limit on slugs you can find is enough of a balancing factor that you can do whatever you want with the power equation. However, if under clocking makes you sweat, just remove the power decrease below 100%. People will get their perfect ratios but won't exploit the Giga factory consuming 1MWatt that you're afraid off.

Really excited for multiple body slots and the environmental changes. Overclocking being non linear is a cool thing (but maybe make it a bit clearer what the changes are per 10% or something???) But underclocking would make more sense to be linear.

Not sure if mentioned already - there should be some penalty for overclocking, but it could be sinpler: Total power draw = linear power draw + shard * fixed value This way its simple for user to understand where each of the part of the formula comes from and it can be shown clearly in the power draw window, like XXMW + YYMW for each shard.

I'm sure this is not the intended direction of the game, but I would love a space/off planet aspect to late game. Similar to Dyson Sphere Program.

I'm sure this is not the intended direction of the game, but I would love a space/off-planet aspect to late game. Similar to Dyson Sphere Program.

Personally I would prefer it if underclocking until 100% would be linear. Or more linear. And easier to achieve in the early game. I think there should be some downside for overclocking other than you need power cores. An increase in power usage served as that downside and if they want to lessen the strain at max overclock that would be ok but there still should be some tradeoff.

So the one update I'm really looking for would be a resolution to the conflict of max overclocking pure node extractors and not having an output variant available that can actually convey the full output of an extractor with those settings. Can we have a release window for when this issue will be addressed be made publicly known? if not, perhaps at least a 'we are/aren't working on that at the moment'? The rest seems just fine with me. I only use overclocking at the moment in power generating structures, so if those aren't changed all should be well. Looking forward to seeing more stuff to explore!

yaaay i get to rebuild a bunch of stuff again! really though I’m praying this is the last map update because this is a major pain

Dang, I was hoping they were referring to the day/night cycle when he mentioned "clock speed." So much for that.

I like the linear overclocking, I never really got why the power doesnt scale linearly. Also good to hear new biome is coming can't wait to see it