Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Galena ore processing balance bug #1439

Closed
Antillar opened this issue Apr 11, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1503
Closed

Galena ore processing balance bug #1439

Antillar opened this issue Apr 11, 2018 · 3 comments · Fixed by #1503

Comments

@Antillar
Copy link

Galena Dust can be processed several ways.

  • 1 Galena Dust -> 1 Lead Ingot (smelting)
  • 1 Galena Dust -> 0.375 Lead Dust + 0.375 Silver Dust + 0.25 Sulfur Dust (electrolyzer)
  • 1 Galena Dust -> 1.5 Lead Ingot + 1 Silver Ingot (primitive blast furnace)
  • 1 Galena Dust -> 1.5 Lead Ingot + 0.67 Silver Ingot (blast furnace chemical smelting)

Compare the last 2. You can clearly see that the more primitive one gives more output. This is illogically considering the last one is performed at a higher tech level with higher efficiency and requires some decent work with gases to be performed.

I suggest increasing silver yield from the last recipe from 6 nuggets to at least 9 nuggets, so it is equal to the primitive blast furnace recipe, and ideally the silver output should be 10-11 nuggets to make the energy and resources spent on performing the last recipe provide at least some profit!

@Zaxar163
Copy link

Also! I think it is illogically. But it is not big bug.

@nictrace
Copy link

maybe simply change silver output between two types of BF?

@YoungGT
Copy link
Contributor

YoungGT commented Dec 9, 2018

I think it's better to exchange the output nuggets of the last two recipes, so there will be both no nuggets problem and no tech level problem.

Blood-Asp pushed a commit that referenced this issue Dec 9, 2018
* Fix #1439

* Fix #1456

* mistake
Dream-Master referenced this issue in GTNewHorizons/GT5-Unofficial Dec 11, 2018
Fix #1439 and #1456 (#1503)

* Fix #1439

* Fix #1456

* mistake
Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
Labels
None yet
Projects
None yet
Development

Successfully merging a pull request may close this issue.

4 participants