Version 1.1.50

[jodokus31]

The bug is classified as minor issue, until someone decides, it is worth to be fixed.
That might be not satisfying, but it's just how it works with non critical bugs.

it's not satisfying 'cause in my eyes the "minor" classification does not feel thought through very well.
my questions in the bug report were never answered, and instead the whole thing was dismissed with a false dichotomy as a minor issue.

feels like saying "we might look into it in the future, if nothing else ever comes up." rather than "we'll look into it eventually".
This is a feature in the base game, dammit!

once 1.0 was released, we could finally produce one of the few items we could not make before.
After playing thousands of hours, something like this really inspires some players like myself, right? But when you try to do it, you are hindered by the game. When you let the devs know, they don't seem to understand the issue, the community does not understand at all and your posts get deleted.

do you see why i've been bitter ever since? this is not satisfactory indeed! the devs of that game at least seem to give a damn!

I do understand that you like this to be fixed, to produce fish automatically.
It doesn't change the fact, that is a very niche problem, which most players won't ever encounter.
I also don't get why this is would be reason to get bitter and lead to the claim, that the devs give a damn. That's quite unreasonable given the fact how much else was fixed and optimized. Obviously, you never can please everyone...
I would propose to calm down and try it a bit more friendly. The harassing way to convince Wube to change something was never very successful in the past.

[mmmPI]

i don't have a problem with that in and of itself, i just wish the whole deal was handled a bit more honestly rather than saying "the only other solution is worse" and burying the thread in minor issues.
something like "we are planning to refactor silos someday and we might look into it then", "we'll think about it" or just "this is not intended" would have been more reassuring.

Maybe it is true that there is no easy solution otherwise i think it would be fixed already. In this case it wouldn't be honnest to say " we are planning something" if there is no plan.

The in-game behavior doesn't contradict the careful wording in the wiki https://wiki.factorio.com/Raw_fish. The problem occurs during auto-launch, when you want to get more than 12 fish at a time, to populate your desert of spidertrons for example.

It's an issue, it's not into the "not a bug". The classification of "minor" is subjective, it's an answer similar to "this is not intented" imo.

So out of your 3 reassuring proposition i think one is implicit. but not the most promising :/

[Zavian]

yeah, and a rocket for a stack of fish is expensive already. a rocket for 12 fish is just preposterous.

If you just want a few fish to build spidertrons, then you can just build some inserters by a lake. Much cheaper, and easily automated. If you are in a hurry, manually mining a few fish or dragging a deconstruction planner over some fish in a lake is cheap and fast.

the issue here is that, in "a game about automation", the game encourages you to handle this thing manually. there is no way around it.

Not everything can be automated. Without manually connecting new ore patches, eventually you will runout of ore. Without manual intervention, eventually your fish/spiderton storage will fill up.

If you want to measure the production of your base in fish per minute, then provided everybody is under the same restrictions, the more expensive the better, since it will take longer before your fish storage needs manual intervention.

I doubt it's a conscious design decision, and most surely not "working as intended"; since some users like to thoughtlessly bark that.

If the devs considered it "working as intended", then the bug report would have been moved to not a bug, rather than minor issues. If they thought that it would never be fixed, they could have moved it to won't fix.

what i want to do with the fish is irrelevant.

What you want to do with fish goes to how many fish you need, which is relevant to how best to obtain them.

[ptx0]

I do understand that you like this to be fixed, to produce fish automatically.
It doesn't change the fact, that is a very niche problem, which most players won't ever encounter.
I also don't get why this is would be reason to get bitter and lead to the claim, that the devs give a damn. That's quite unreasonable given the fact how much else was fixed and optimized. Obviously, you never can please everyone...
I would propose to calm down and try it a bit more friendly. The harassing way to convince Wube to change something was never very successful in the past.

i think it's mostly people like you who come along to dissuade them of their stance. why? it's not your job to fix it or to tell people that their idea is stupid or niche.

[jodokus31]

I do understand that you like this to be fixed, to produce fish automatically.
It doesn't change the fact, that is a very niche problem, which most players won't ever encounter.
I also don't get why this is would be reason to get bitter and lead to the claim, that the devs give a damn. That's quite unreasonable given the fact how much else was fixed and optimized. Obviously, you never can please everyone...
I would propose to calm down and try it a bit more friendly. The harassing way to convince Wube to change something was never very successful in the past.

i think it's mostly people like you who come along to dissuade them of their stance. why? it's not your job to fix it or to tell people that their idea is stupid or niche.

Yeah probably true. It's just my 2 cents.
For this goal to automate fish properly, it is very important and a bit frustrating how it's behaving currently. This can be seen as endgame goal instead of RPM or SPM.

[TaxiService]

[...]
It's an issue, it's not into the "not a bug". The classification of "minor" is subjective, it's an answer similar to "this is not intented" imo.

So out of your 3 reassuring proposition i think one is implicit. but not the most promising :/

yeah, you are right. i guess i should at least take some solace in that. thanks

I also don't get why this is would be reason to get bitter and lead to the claim, that the devs give a damn. That's quite unreasonable given the fact how much else was fixed and optimized. Obviously, you never can please everyone...
I would propose to calm down and try it a bit more friendly. The harassing way to convince Wube to change something was never very successful in the past.

first of all, i don't mean to be harassing anyone. i am just trying to express my frustration with some problems i have perceived.

as i have stated already:
- when the bug was classified as minor, the reasoning behind it was fallacious. Since these are not the only two options, this conclusion worries me.
- most of the community misses the point entirely and tells me "you dont need fish", "it's by design", "it's a you-problem" or other arguments that belittle the issue whilst not making sense.

moreover, here's my other experience with a "minor bug".
before taking an arrow to the knee, i used to work in graphic design. I consider stuff like this to be extremely sloppy. But alas, it is an arguably "minor" problem. It does not affect gameplay at all and only bothers people that notice details like this. no biggie.
needless to say, it was never given another thought again, and as of today the icons still differ in size.

the silo behaviour, on the other hand, IS a gameplay problem. but still, it was classified as minor by what i consider a mistake in logic. a minor bug that, in my experience, won't be given a thought again.

months later, i once even committed the sin of double-posting in the bug report thread, to ask if it was given some consideration, i think? but my post was promptly deleted.

this makes a human become from "the friendliest motherfucker you'll meet all week" to "bitter".
if you can't empathize with me i don't think it's a problem with my communication.

[...]
What you want to do with fish goes to how many fish you need, which is relevant to how best to obtain them.

not quite.
for nauvis' sake, i've built a font out of rails. designed deathmatch arenas with environmental hazards. we once made a system that allowed us to destroy superfluous items on no-friendly-fire servers by abusing worms, and automated the whole process with a dedicated train and logic.

wanting to make fish is not about having "the best" way to make fish. it's about what you can and can't accomplish in the game.
it's about finding creative answers to questions of all sorts, stupid or otherwise.
the real question is "why would i NOT be making fish?" and the answer is "a bug".
And when i point it out i get shot down by most users for... no good reason?!

and, full disclosure: i guess the first time i wanted to make fish was to work on some sort of spidertron-making outpost, i guess? maybe a mall that made everything? I don't even remember at this point since i got stopped in my tracks by the bug, and eventually got depressed after all this.

[jodokus31]

first of all, i don't mean to be harassing anyone. i am just trying to express my frustration with some problems i have perceived.
...
And when i point it out i get shot down by most users for... no good reason?!

Sorry for calling it harassing, but it seemed to me, that it started to go in that direction...

I get most of what you say and can understand the points and the disappointment. I also had my disappointments with proposing ideas, which got ignored.
I would say, that devs should be aware of the issue and the possible misunderstanding by now and maybe they'll care about it. Idk.

But there is always a valid reason to don't fix or care about (minor) issues. No matter, if the issue was understood wrong or not or what kind of issue it is.
-> Prioritization
The time which is spent with treating the issue can be spent for "more important" development, where only the devs determine, what exactly is more important. Unfortunately (or maybe fortunately) the devs have to plan for themselves.

Hypothetically, I could say, that I don't want them to waste time on that issue, because i want them to deliver the expansion earlier...That would be a good reason, wouldn't it? I don't do that.

[billbo99]

yeah, and a rocket for a stack of fish is expensive already. a rocket for 12 fish is just preposterous.

If you just want a few fish to build spidertrons, then you can just build some inserters by a lake. Much cheaper, and easily automated. If you are in a hurry, manually mining a few fish or dragging a deconstruction planner over some fish in a lake is cheap and fast.

A year ago I wrote this mod so that our community could automate getting fish via rocket silo. We were looking to see how fast we could automate producing spidertrons per minute. The mod allows you to send a signal to the silo to launch it and it also returns how full the rocket is with components. This way we were able to load up 200 space science packs before launching the rocket to get 200 fish back.

https://mods.factorio.com/mod/CircuitControlledSilo


There are also a few mods that allow fish to be generated (we didn't use these as we wanted to use the science pack method just for the challenge)
.. https://mods.factorio.com/mod/FishBreeder
.. https://mods.factorio.com/mod/AquafarmExtended
.. https://mods.factorio.com/mod/VersepellesAquaFarm015

spidertron.PNG (974.31 KiB) Viewed 7320 times

[TheKillerChicken]

I cannot seem to find the win64 binaries for the headless server.

[Loewchen]

I cannot seem to find the win64 binaries for the headless server.

There isn't one. For windows it is a parameter you need to set on the normal installation for it to run as headless.

[TheKillerChicken]

I cannot seem to find the win64 binaries for the headless server.

There isn't one. For windows it is a parameter you need to set on the normal installation for it to run as headless.

Yea, I had a dumb moment and totally forgot about SteamCMD and command lines. I got it up and running now due to someone helping me on the Steam forums.