Next Article in Journal
CrptAC: Find the Attack Chain with Multiple Encrypted System Logs
Previous Article in Journal
Large Language Model Inference Acceleration Based on Hybrid Model Branch Prediction
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Modeling and Analyzing the Strategy Game “Factorio” Using Modular Petri Nets and the General-Purpose Petri Net Simulator

Electronics 2024, 13(7), 1377; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13071377
by Benjamin Alexander Chandler and Reggie Davidrajuh *,†
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Electronics 2024, 13(7), 1377; https://doi.org/10.3390/electronics13071377
Submission received: 8 March 2024 / Revised: 26 March 2024 / Accepted: 28 March 2024 / Published: 5 April 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, please find my comments, questions, and suggestions below.

I found some typos. 

In line 113: Additionally, the figure 3 demonstrates the use of splitters ...

In line 125: Additionally, the keywords module-in (MI) and module-out (MO) in figure 4 ...

In Figure 4: Assembling Machine Module (Missed twice in upper blocks)

Please fix it.

Equation 1 is confusing to me. I understand the formula this way:

Run_Time (sec.) = Mining_Time/Mining_Speed = x (sec.)/y(items/sec.) = z (sec.*sec./items)

In my mind, Unit of measurement sec.*sec./items is not equal to sec. 

I think equation (1) may be as confusing to some readers as it is to me. Please add a more detailed explanation of this equation in the Article.

In the text you provide links to tables and figures in square brackets (lines 193, 268, 384). Most readers, myself included, expect to see references to literature in square brackets. You should replace them with round ones. In my opinion, this will be more comfortable for readers.

The legend of the graphs in Figures 11-16 is difficult to read. You should separate words with spaces and write capital letters not in subscript.

In my opinion, you should discuss the chosen method and obtained results in more detail. You need to more clearly describe your contribution to the field. Why did you choose Modular Petri Nets to model the game scenario of Factorio? Are there any alternative methods? Is it possible to compare your model with existing ones? Is it possible to estimate the accuracy of your model? Have you verified obtained results using the game? This will help show the advantages and disadvantages of your solution in more detail. You may add answers to the questions above in the Introduction and Discussion Sections.

In general, I think your Article deserves publication after major revision. I have a final question for You. I'm wondering in which Journal you want to publish this Article? The footer says Computers, but the Manuscript submitted to Electronics. I wish you to decide as soon as possible before the Editors of Electronics Journal notice your uncertainty.

Author Response

Please see the attached "Point-to-point response to the reveiwers' comments"

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Thanks for submitting this interesting work. This is the first time that I came across the paper of this type: conducting strategy analysis based on the video games. The authors have started from a very fresh angle and applies the traditional Petri Net Theory and GPenSIM tool to analyzing the optimization opportunities in the popular Factorio game.

 

During the strategy analysis, the key part is the modelling process, i.e., making a mapping from the real games to the Petri Net variables. The authors have done a very good job and here and extracted the key component from the video game and use the abstract language from Petri Net to describe it. In the evaluation and simulation analysis, the authors have analyzed the effect of different parameter tuning and discusses the optimization towards different objectives.

 

I hope the authors can revise a bit and add some background information about the game itself, because some readers may have not heard of the game. Besides, in the final section (i.e., Section 5 and Section 6), the authors should supplement some discussion content, talking about the practical implications of the findings, i.e., what practical user cases can benefit from the findings in the paper?

Overall, this is a nice work. Given the minor points fixed, I am happy to have it accepted.

Author Response

Please see the attached "Point-to-point" response to the reviewers' comments. 

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Dear Authors, thanks for improving the manuscript according to my comments and suggestions. I have no more questions for you.

I think now your article can be published in Electronics Journal after the Editors' chek.

Back to TopTop