Solar panels less of a no-brainer

[Ghoulish]

So here's my idea:
Add a solar efficiency option to the map gen settings
That way people can choose to have solar panels just as efficient as they'd like them to be. It seems like the best solution to please everyone and is another way of changing the game difficulty.

This would just lead to confusion for one, players might change things and make solar panels all but useless (especially the case for newer players). And it would add another option to an already poor unintuitive interface (map generator screen).

[MalcolmCooks]

The bottom line of this discussion is that each player expects something different from solar panels. Some people want them to stay the same, some people (like me) would prefer them if they weren't so powerful.

In my opinion the root of the problem why people are actually complaining about Solar/Accumulators is not that they are so powerful, but rather that they offer only boring gameplay.


If people would let this fact sink in for a moment they should realize that the argument of "solar panels/accumulators being less of a no-brainer" is right when considering the gameplay aspect Solar Power offers. Once you automated the production of the panels/accumulators (most of which you have to do anyways to produce Science Pack 3's due to similar intermediate items... Steel Bars, Batteries for example)... there is no real gameplay to it anymore. You use a blueprint to just stamp down more of the same boring 2 items and that's it. No satisfaction because of how no thought process is involved whatsoever.

Is that such a problem though? It would be stupid to arbitrarily make solar panels more complex just for the sake of it. As it is needing to set up oil production for batteries for accus to make a fully-powered solar factory viable is probably complex enough already. Like I said, the fact that you can just plop solar panels down wherever you like actually feels like the right way to do it. If people find that to be boring gameplay then... they can just choose not to do it! Ifanything this is a case for adding another second-teir energy source to the game.

So here's my idea:
Add a solar efficiency option to the map gen settings
That way people can choose to have solar panels just as efficient as they'd like them to be. It seems like the best solution to please everyone and is another way of changing the game difficulty.

This would just lead to confusion for one, players might change things and make solar panels all but useless (especially the case for newer players). And it would add another option to an already poor unintuitive interface (map generator screen).

I disagree, I think most new players will leave things on normal or default settings until they find that it's too hard or easy, and then will fiddle with the map settings to find what they like. That's what I did anyways. And if they use solar panels and decide the would like them to be more or less efficient then they can do that. If the map generator screen is unintuitive then that's a different problem entirely.

[Ghoulish]

MalcolmCooks, changing the efficiency of solar panels is a setting too far for vanilla. As you say even if it were there most people wouldn't change it anyway.. However if the devs were to put settings for solar panel efficiency, day / night length, or how fast pollution spreads in to one configuration file - so the experienced player who wishes a fine tuned harder set up, can have just that, well great go for it! I just feel it would be too over the top as a default interface item.

[MeduSalem]

Is that such a problem though? [...] If people find that to be boring gameplay then... they can just choose not to do it!

If you ask me, then yes it is a problem. If a game feature is boring then it should either be improved on to make it less boring or removed because it isn't adding anything to the fun. I am obviously not for removing the Solar Panels/Accumulators, but rather to make them a more interesting experience instead and in my opinion that's something that would benefit EVERY player because quite frankly... why do you play Factorio if not to have fun playing around with puzzle solving and increasing depth of gameplay? If you just want to kill Biters then any Tower Defense game without needing a huge factory to back it up would be better. And as for survival games there are also others out there that don't require as many thought processes as well.

It would be stupid to arbitrarily make solar panels more complex just for the sake of it.

There is a rule I like to follow when coming up with suggestions/improvements to Factorio:

Depth > Complexity.

So basically there is a difference between increasing "complexity" and increasing "depth":

• Complexity would mean adding 100 new individual items to increase the gameplay without any of them benefiting other existing gameplay elements
• Depth would mean adding more ways to reuse existing items, or adding an item that has several usage scenarios when combined with existing features

That's why Depth is better than Complexity.

Applied to Factorio and the Solar/Accumulator problem I don't think that adding an upkeep/maintenance element to Solar/Accumulators would necessarily result in more "complexity". If well done with reusing many of the already established, existing game features it could increase the "depth" and therefore most likely also the fun.

As it is needing to set up oil production for batteries for accus to make a fully-powered solar factory viable is probably complex enough already. Like I said, the fact that you can just plop solar panels down wherever you like actually feels like the right way to do it.

No offense intended but it somehow seems like you are mixing apples with oranges.

Because there is a difference in:

• Setting up infrastructure to produce items that are used to build other infrastructure, which is a one-time investment due to only putting a temporary drain on your factory.
• Setting up infrastructure required for upkeep/maintenance reasons, which is a continuous investment due to putting a permanent drain on your factory.

• For Steam Power to be viable you have to do both: One-Time Investment + Continuous Investment.
• For Solar Power you have to only the first: One-Time Investment

The Continuous Investment of Steam Power eventually outweighs the One-Time investment of Solar Panels. So no matter how much they cost to setup, the Steam Power Plant will eventually use magnitudes of what you put into producing Solar Panels/Accumulators. Oil is much more important than Iron/Copper Ore, because honestly I end up stocking up on Iron/Copper that I don't even know what to spend it on and that's why I already use Gun Turrets to at least have some permanent consumer for that stuff.

So from a balancing perspective that renders Solar Power the better choice and that's why most people are doing it only come to the conclusion that it kills all the fun the game otherwise might have to offer. And that's when threads like this one come to existence and it is not the only thread about the issue.

If anything this is a case for adding another second-teir energy source to the game.

Yeah, that has been suggested multiple times as well.

Some people reason that adding more ways to produce energy might alleviate some of the Solar Panel/Accumulator problem and whatnot, but I also pointed out that it would only be a temporary solution and eventually if Solar Power stays the way it is or the new ways of producing Power suffer exactly from the same "boring" or "unreasonably balanced" problem then the entire topic will resurface on an even larger scale sooner or later once people figured out the efficiencies and other gameplay aspects of the new energy types.

With the difference that it would be even harder to come up with a good solution to deal with the problems when all these new energy sources are there and even more people agreeing/disagreeing with how things should be and how they should not be.

That said I am for new sources of energy, but first we should sort out the problem of Solar Panels/Accumulators. The only reason to implement a third method now is if Solar Panels/Accumulators would be reworked in combination to that or otherwise the complaints continue.

[Ghoulish]

Is that such a problem though? [...] If people find that to be boring gameplay then... they can just choose not to do it!

• For Steam Power to be viable you have to do both: One-Time Investment + Continuous Investment.
• For Solar Power you have to only the first: One-Time Investment

And that is exactly what I currently want.

I personally don't want the extra hassle of having to feed coal to boilers all game long. I would rather be doing other things.

[MeduSalem]

I personally don't want the extra hassle of having to feed coal to boilers all game long. I would rather be doing other things.

You don't have to feed Coal to Boilers all game long. You can switch to Solid Fuel, which is also a way to produce infinite energy.

[Ghoulish]

So you've basically got another free energy production system then, once setup needing little maintenance. Like solar then?

[MalcolmCooks]

There is no sensible way to add an upkeep cost to solar panels within the scope of the game. Nothing else requires upkeep. Solar panels work the way they do because Factorio takes realism only so far as to make an interesting but not pointlessly frustrating game. Example: conveyer belts run forever with no power or maintainence cost. Rails never need to be maintained. None of the machines with vast numbers of moving parts ever need an oil change, or break down, or overheat. Everything essentially works as an idealised version of itself, including solar panels. That is why I say adding an upkeep cost to solar panels would be arbitrary. It would break the established rules of the game and I disagree that it would add any depth to the gameplay.
Yes, I agree that solar panels are boring to use, but within the scope of the game I think they are actually balanced (apart from the actual power output). That is why I don't use them, but I completely fail to understand why that means other players who think they work well should be begrudged their easy cheap power. And like I said, setting up an oil production chain to make enough accumulators for a 100% solar to be viable, is not a simple feat and the cheap easy power can be seen as a reward for putting that initial effort in.
So instead of using them and complaining that they are boring... just don't use them. They aren't necessary for the game, nothing is lost by not using them. There is an infinite map with infinite resources so it doesn't matter if in the end you use up more of your infinite coal or infinite oil on steam power plants than you would use up infinite copper and infinite steel to make solar panels.

So you've basically got another free energy production system then, once setup needing little maintenance. Like solar then?

Yes, and this is the way everything in Factorio is actually. maybe you have to move your mining drills around every once in a while but so what?

[Ghoulish]

So you've basically got another free energy production system then, once setup needing little maintenance. Like solar then?

Yes, and this is the way everything in Factorio is actually. maybe you have to move your mining drills around every once in a while but so what?

I've never really put much thought in to feeding the generators off of solid fuel, I do know it's more efficient than using coal, just generally always gone for steam early then solar asap. It's not an inconsiderable number of solar panel and accumulators you need to have 50GJ stored up for example.. It's a huge investment of resources and I, like you, feel solar is OK as is. Use coal and steam, and / or solar - whatever, solar doesn't need upkeep added to balance them.

Solid fuel and steam is a way I'll build one of these days though, I kinda like the idea.

[MeduSalem]

There is no sensible way to add an upkeep cost to solar panels within the scope of the game.

Then you didn't read any of the viable suggestions other people made in this thread here as well as this one over there: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15519

There are quite a lot of suggestions in both threads that suggest an upkeep element that isn't too intrusive/unfair.

Nothing else requires upkeep. Solar panels work the way they do because Factorio takes realism only so far as to make an interesting but not pointlessly frustrating game. Example: conveyer belts run forever with no power or maintainence cost. Rails never need to be maintained. None of the machines with vast numbers of moving parts ever need an oil change, or break down, or overheat. Everything essentially works as an idealised version of itself, including solar panels. That is why I say adding an upkeep cost to solar panels would be arbitrary. It would break the established rules of the game and I disagree that it would add any depth to the gameplay.
Yes, I agree that solar panels are boring to use, but within the scope of the game I think they are actually balanced (apart from the actual power output). That is why I don't use them, but I completely fail to understand why that means other players who think they work well should be begrudged their easy cheap power. And like I said, setting up an oil production chain to make enough accumulators for a 100% solar to be viable, is not a simple feat and the cheap easy power can be seen as a reward for putting that initial effort in.
So instead of using them and complaining that they are boring... just don't use them. They aren't necessary for the game, nothing is lost by not using them. There is an infinite map with infinite resources so it doesn't matter if in the end you use up more of your infinite coal or infinite oil on steam power plants than you would use up infinite copper and infinite steel to make solar panels.

With that argumentation the entire concept of producing power can be scrapped from the game. Just remove both Steam Power and Solar Power and everyone is happy having a dull experience. Because that is basically what you are suggesting.

Either every way to produce power requires an upkeep element or there is no upkeep element to both of them, meaning Steam Power shouldn't require any upkeep either. Since both of them work already differently it already breaks what you think is "the established rule of nothing requires upkeep".

And taking the next step basically means... why have the concept of Power production in the first place if it doesn't require the player to ensure it keeps on running?

In reality Solar Panels can't run forever either as they get dusty and lose efficiency and accumulators/batteries deteriorate due to charge/discharge.

So you've basically got another free energy production system then, once setup needing little maintenance.

Exactly.

Like solar then?

• From the point of free energy production: Yes
• From the point of gameplay: No

Because like some people, including myself, established:

• Just stamping down a blueprint of Solar Panels/Accumulators down all over the landscape is a boring task, which can be scaled endlessly.
• Expanding the size of a Steam Power plant requires more thought and it can't be scaled endlessly without running into more trouble that need solving = extending the gameplay

Believe me, I get the point that some people might not like running around the base and always extending the Power Plant, but really... Once you have played the game 3-4 times from start to launching the rocket you will get BORED if every task only takes a minute to complete because it can be solved with a single click of a blueprint. If there is nothing you have to do manually anymore you don't get the feeling of actually being involved in the game anymore. At least that's how I feel about it...

[Ghoulish]

• Just stamping down a blueprint of Solar Panels/Accumulators down all over the landscape is a boring task, which can be scaled endlessly.
• Expanding the size of a Steam Power plant requires more thought and it can't be scaled endlessly without running into more trouble that need solving = extending the gameplay

You forget the investment of resources, and time to clear huge blocks of land of biters and forest.

And to be honest your point is just saying that you see the added complexity of coal and steam (supply, logistics and so on) More appealing to how you play Factorio.

[MalcolmCooks]

There is no sensible way to add an upkeep cost to solar panels within the scope of the game.

Then you didn't read any of the viable suggestions other people made in this thread here as well as this one over there: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=15519

There are quite a lot of suggestions in both threads that suggest an upkeep element that isn't too intrusive/unfair.

This argument has been around for a long long time and I have read every suggestion under the sun (pun intended) and I don't think any of them add anything valuable to the game, just unneccessary frustration.

With that argumentation the entire concept of producing power can be scrapped from the game. Just remove both Steam Power and Solar Power and everyone is happy having a dull experience. Because that is basically what you are suggesting.

Either every way to produce power requires an upkeep element or there is no upkeep element to both of them, meaning Steam Power shouldn't require any upkeep either. Since both of them work already differently it already breaks what you think is "the established rule of nothing requires upkeep".

And taking the next step basically means... why have the concept of Power production in the first place if it doesn't require the player to ensure it keeps on running?

In reality Solar Panels can't run forever either as they get dusty and lose efficiency and accumulators/batteries deteriorate due to charge/discharge.

What?

[korda]

Believe me, I get the point that some people might not like running around the base and always extending the Power Plant, but really... Once you have played the game 3-4 times from start to launching the rocket you will get BORED if every task only takes a minute to complete because it can be solved with a single click of a blueprint. If there is nothing you have to do manually anymore you don't get the feeling of actually being involved in the game anymore. At least that's how I feel about it...

I've already said that: you want to fix problem with getting bored with game, not problem with solar panels. I think that instead of adding complexity to existing early to mid game elements, perhaps there should be more interesting challenges in late game...

I think the most of people won't even bother with setting up infinite steam power! My first game is already 30h long and I still haven't used all my starting coal (!). I didn't messed with my initial steam engines for like 20h already (but I did build a few more steam engine power plants here and there). I don't believe steam engines are that much fun. You can prepare pretty nice blueprint for them and few drills on coal will keep them running for dozens of hours...

For me steam engines are much like panels now - initial setup was fun(getting to understand how it works, finding optimal design and ratios), but after that I ended up copy pasting everything.

I believe that in that kind of game you will simply run out of challenges at some point and the most of stuff becomes repetitive. Of course then you can set your own goals or use mods or just find another game to mess with (my way).

[onebit]

Add a solar efficiency option to the map gen settings
That way people can choose to have solar panels just as efficient as they'd like them to be. It seems like the best solution to please everyone and is another way of changing the game difficulty.

I like this idea, but I'd rephrase it as "weather variability": None / Mild / Moderate / Severe.

Weather variability gives an interesting choice of how to solve solar shortfalls. More solar and accumulators vs steam. This choice is actually present in the game, but since solar energy doesn't vary day by day you can always build the perfect amount of solar panels. This would add some thinking to solar and encourage hybrid systems.

[MeduSalem]

I believe that in that kind of game you will simply run out of challenges at some point and the most of stuff becomes repetitive. Of course then you can set your own goals or use mods or just find another game to mess with (my way).

Probably and that's why I have been taking a break of 8-9 months from playing the game over the course of the past year because of how both 0.11 and 0.12 basically brought nothing to ease the boredom experienced at the end of the tech tree. It's like you have this huge ass factory and it turns completely useless once the last Tech is researched.

I ran out of goals I could set for myself shortly after v0.11... and believe me it is not due to lacking imagination. I mean ever since then there has been almost no noticable progress on the game for me. Yeah, there was Multiplayer with 0.11 and it stole the show... but Factorio is the kind of game I don't like to play in Multiplayer. 0.12 has been all about the circuit network upgrades, but since it has been implemented only half way there is only so much practical usage scenarios of the circuit networks right now and I basically covered them within the first month after 0.12, everything else is just fooling around to show off with absolutely no practical use.

Also I am not into using mods when a game is still in Alpha/Beta because they break easily due to updates. Just one patch fixing or changing something a Mod relies on and it might not work anymore. And on the other hand most of the modders are eager to develop their mods early on but a lot of them lose interest in keeping them up to date soon afterwards, meaning they eventually become outdated and don't work anymore. It's an experience I am tired off because I don't feel like restarting a new map another 10 times from scratch just because a broken mod messes around with a savegame. Also I have already replayed the game way too often because there is only so much to do after finishing the Tech tree.

I would be lying if I said that I am not desperate to look for ways to add some additional depth to the game, and probably I am not the only one who is finally burned out of the game due to boredom. So I respect the amount of resistance of people arguing against changing Solar Power so it is time for me to move on because I can waste my time better elsewhere.

[Koub]

There is one thing I want to point when it comes to adding some kind of upkeep (in the form of wearing of accus/solar panels). I use solar every single time I play, not because it has no upkeep, but because I HATE evolution factor, biters evoluting faster than I'm able to cope with them. I'm a big Factorio player (in time) but a poor player in skill. Even with vanilla and default settings, I had to cheat most of my games with console commands at some time because biters got the edge on my ability to defend.

So if going solar actually produces more indirect pollution because of upkeep (pumpjacks, refineries, chem plants, steel, ...) than steam energy produces, just tell me of what use will be solar then ?

My games all go solar with green modules everywhere to keep my pollution as low as possible, so that I don't have to use peaceful mode to be able to finish my games. It seems when I read this forum that there are only people who play with hardest settings, huge biter bases, minimal ressources, and find that too boringly easy. But I'm sure I'm not the only Factorio player not to be in that case, and aùongst the vast majority of silent players around the world, there are quite a number who are like me.

[korda]

I ran out of goals I could set for myself shortly after v0.11... and believe me it is not due to lacking imagination. I mean ever since then there has been almost no noticable progress on the game for me. Yeah, there was Multiplayer with 0.11 and it stole the show... but Factorio is the kind of game I don't like to play in Multiplayer. 0.12 has been all about the circuit network upgrades, but since it has been implemented only half way there is only so much practical usage scenarios of the circuit networks right now and I basically covered them within the first month after 0.12, everything else is just fooling around to show off with absolutely no practical use.

I feel you bro. I had very similar problem with Kerbal Space Program - I played it so much during early access (and it really took some time before it was ready - I bought long before it was on steam) and after official release I couldn't really force myself to play it for a really long time (and even now I played it only for a while before getting to the point where I started to be bored). Whats worse it's not the fault of the game! It gave me hundreds of hours of creative fun. And when I look only at price-to-hours-enjoyed ratio it's one of the best game on steam (although I actually paid for it... 5 bucks - it was that cheap very early in development). But in the end game thats only PvE will have hard time keeping player engaged forever.

My advice? Walk away and come at release or start writing your own mods (if you are not doing it already).

[Zhab]

It seems when I read this forum that there are only people who play with hardest settings, huge biter bases, minimal ressources, and find that too boringly easy. But I'm sure I'm not the only Factorio player not to be in that case, and aùongst the vast majority of silent players around the world, there are quite a number who are like me.

That is what I've been saying for a while now. Mostly die hard addicts posting around here. Addicts who are most likely pushing the game to one extreme or an other with their play style. Speed running and mega base building are 2 exemples. Normal people usually play a game a few times and then move on to an other games. You know... like they do with every other games out there.

Side note: I have to say that I'm curious of your play style Koub. I would enjoy a let's play of it. Some of my favorite minecraft videos are from not so good players struggling with the game. Which sometimes involve hilarious fails and player reactions.

[Koub]

Side note: I have to say that I'm curious of your play style Koub. I would enjoy a let's play of it. Some of my favorite minecraft videos are from not so good players struggling with the game. Which sometimes involve hilarious fails and player reactions.

That's pretty much off topic, so I'll make it short, or I'd have to auto-moderate myself . I work 10 to 11 hours a day, then I spend around 5-6 hours a day to do my moderator job on this forum. The rest of the time, I eat or sleep (and spend some time with my GF) . Since Steam launch, I have unfortunately no time to play.

[Lallante]

Its seems stupid that there is a power solution that, once you have it automated one time, is effectively the last bit of non-trivial gameplay you do in that entire resource (power).

It seems especially stupid that this method offers EVERY advantage except cost over its alternative. I do think the main problem is accumulators (which are also wholly unrealistic) rather than the panels themselves, however. A base which needed solar (day) AND coal (night) would be a deeper outcome.

I actually dont think the game would lose much by getting rid of accumulators entirely and replacing it with some kind of solar-heating system which could be used to heat liquid during the day and use it to run your steam engines at night.