Version 0.17.60

Information about releases and roadmap.
Post Reply
Adamo
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 7:00 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Adamo »

Now that we're done with that, can we address the issue that refinery (at least) recipes using fluid box indexing (both my recipes and the vanilla recipes) appear to lose pipe connections upon saving and reloading a map?

JCav
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 50
Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2016 9:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by JCav »

Adamo wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:12 pm
Now that we're done with that, can we address the issue that refinery (at least) recipes using fluid box indexing (both my recipes and the vanilla recipes) appear to lose pipe connections upon saving and reloading a map?
Make a bug report?...

Preserteo
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:11 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Preserteo »

Disappointed. Factorio was something else. There were challenges and we had to find solutions.

The developers listened to the community to improve the game, make real challenges already balanced.

But money can do everything, you have to attract new players and fill the pocket that is emptying. Although there are other ways to make money that make the game easier.

But this is the direction that is being taken, the next thing will be that elements fall from the sky so as not to have to go through ... it doesn't matter. Goodbay Factorio.

It wouldn't occur to me to ask for my money back, I've enjoyed it more than 3,000 hours, I've started another game and it's ... shit. The first 10 hours have no incentive.

NikonTheThird
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 6
Joined: Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by NikonTheThird »

I just registered to tell that I really really REALLY like these changes.

Oil has always been a huge pain to set up initially, having to store two fluids with little use. This fixes it.
Now it is possible to set up blue science without rushing Advanced Oil Processing.

Thank you, devs!

User avatar
Astrella
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Astrella »

FuryoftheStars wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:53 pm
Please feel free to tell me which part is a hyperbole.
The bit where you and several others in this thread are acting like a small change you don't agree with suddenly means a complete change in game design direction for Wube?
Astrella wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:43 pm
It changes the way we play the game. "Finishing" the game isn't the fun part. It's the journey there. And this change does effect the flow and feel of the game.
But the elements you encounter in the journey are still the same is my point.

Aflixion
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Aflixion »

Astrella wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:53 pm
FuryoftheStars wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:53 pm
Please feel free to tell me which part is a hyperbole.
The bit where you and several others in this thread are acting like a small change you don't agree with suddenly means a complete change in game design direction for Wube?
It's not a small change though. It fundamentally changes the puzzle of oil processing to address a non-problem, as has been well-documented in other places.

User avatar
Light
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 678
Joined: Mon Oct 10, 2016 6:19 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Light »

I had a strong feeling it was going to be done because the devs were dead set on the fact it had to be changed regardless of any logical reasoning to counter it. A change for the sake of change.

I'm also not surprised that feedback was dismissed either, given that V seemed to be the only one who actually engaged in discussion despite himself being against the change and acting as the mouthpiece for the ones who did. That made no sense to me. Whoever wanted the change should have spoken up and presented their entire case instead of hiding in the back. V can't be expected to fully understand the decision as he didn't propose it or even support it.

Then I read that the devs were unsure of the change but pushed it anyway. If the staff can't agree on what to do then perhaps it's best to shelve it until a proper solution comes along, rather than pushing it on the community while likely disregarding their continued dissatisfaction and hoping it just blows over.

I feel like I need to quote Reika from another thread here:
Reika wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:00 pm
Also worth bringing up is the huge difference in approach between this FFF proposal and the science changes in 0.15; those were also in a large part described as being designed to smooth the difficulty spike at blue science, and to make the progression through the game more natural. And yet out of it we got not simpler processing, or less features, but more items, more recipes, and more production trees, just with less of a jump between them. Because THAT is what Factorio is all about. I remember being so excited to try those changes almost exactly two years ago today - I still have fond memories of playing 0.15 in summer 2017 - and that is what we and Wube should be striving for again.
This quote sums up my thoughts and experiences as well. Instead of upping the ante and adding things to smooth the curve, these changes make the curve more jagged since there's fewer things to smooth it down.

There should have been additions to ease players into oil processing, which is what Wube of the past would have done rather than this poorly implemented "solution". Since a tutorial is apparently out of the question, some easier fluid based recipes using the chemical lab before using the oil refinery would have eased players into it better than this.

I'm sure there were dozens of great ideas suggested that solved the issue without taking anything away. It's such a shame they weren't considered more carefully.

Credits to V for speaking to the community at least. He shouldn't have been the one to do it but at least someone bothered to. Now I look forward to seeing what will be said on Friday regarding all of this.

Preserteo
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:11 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Preserteo »

Light wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 9:09 pm
I had a strong feeling it was going to be done because the devs were dead set on the fact it had to be changed regardless of any logical reasoning to counter it. A change for the sake of change.

I'm also not surprised that feedback was dismissed either, given that V seemed to be the only one who actually engaged in discussion despite himself being against the change and acting as the mouthpiece for the ones who did. That made no sense to me. Whoever wanted the change should have spoken up and presented their entire case instead of hiding in the back. V can't be expected to fully understand the decision as he didn't propose it or even support it.

Then I read that the devs were unsure of the change but pushed it anyway. If the staff can't agree on what to do then perhaps it's best to shelve it until a proper solution comes along, rather than pushing it on the community while likely disregarding their continued dissatisfaction and hoping it just blows over.

I feel like I need to quote Reika from another thread here:
Reika wrote: ↑
Sun Jul 28, 2019 10:00 pm
Also worth bringing up is the huge difference in approach between this FFF proposal and the science changes in 0.15; those were also in a large part described as being designed to smooth the difficulty spike at blue science, and to make the progression through the game more natural. And yet out of it we got not simpler processing, or less features, but more items, more recipes, and more production trees, just with less of a jump between them. Because THAT is what Factorio is all about. I remember being so excited to try those changes almost exactly two years ago today - I still have fond memories of playing 0.15 in summer 2017 - and that is what we and Wube should be striving for again.
This quote sums up my thoughts and experiences as well. Instead of upping the ante and adding things to smooth the curve, these changes make the curve more jagged since there's fewer things to smooth it down.

There should have been additions to ease players into oil processing, which is what Wube of the past would have done rather than this poorly implemented "solution". Since a tutorial is apparently out of the question, some easier fluid based recipes using the chemical lab before using the oil refinery would have eased players into it better than this.

I'm sure there were dozens of great ideas suggested that solved the issue without taking anything away. It's such a shame they weren't considered more carefully.

Credits to V for speaking to the community at least. He shouldn't have been the one to do it but at least someone bothered to. Now I look forward to seeing what will be said on Friday regarding all of this.
Nothing substantial will be said on Friday. This is not a simple change in the game, it is a change in the politics of the game. But it would not be done after reading this forum the last two weeks.

BorisTheBastard
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
Posts: 3
Joined: Sat Jul 27, 2019 3:21 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by BorisTheBastard »

Why even offer a discussion when you (devs) are just going to make changes as you see fit? People spent considerable amount of time writing multiple-paragraph posts defending their position and making very good sense, to no avail.

meganothing
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by meganothing »

Aflixion wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:45 pm
Except the target audience for this change isn't even playing on the experimental branch, they're playing on the stable branch. The people whose feedback is needed for this won't get this until it's been declared stable and extremely unlikely to change again.

So please explain into which version this change should have been implemented to get it fast into the hands of the target audience?

In A16 stable? I.e. the version people play because they don't want any changes to happen to their game? Is anyone so braindead to think this would be a good plan?

In A18.0? Where it probably will take another 20-60 iterations until it is declared stable and the target audience gets it?

Or in A17.60? A version that is soon to be declared stable (AFAIK). Soon in the hands of the target audience, right?

If I'm wrong, please explain.

Preserteo
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:11 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Preserteo »

meganothing wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:05 pm
Aflixion wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:45 pm
Except the target audience for this change isn't even playing on the experimental branch, they're playing on the stable branch. The people whose feedback is needed for this won't get this until it's been declared stable and extremely unlikely to change again.

So please explain into which version this change should have been implemented to get it fast into the hands of the target audience?

In A16 stable? I.e. the version people play because they don't want any changes to happen to their game? Is anyone so braindead to think this would be a good plan?

In A18.0? Where it probably will take another 20-60 iterations until it is declared stable and the target audience gets it?

Or in A17.60? A version that is soon to be declared stable (AFAIK). Soon in the hands of the target audience, right?

If I'm wrong, please explain.
The question is not when it should be implemented, but because it is implemented.

Aflixion
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 42
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2017 9:39 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Aflixion »

meganothing wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:05 pm
Aflixion wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:45 pm
Except the target audience for this change isn't even playing on the experimental branch, they're playing on the stable branch. The people whose feedback is needed for this won't get this until it's been declared stable and extremely unlikely to change again.

So please explain into which version this change should have been implemented to get it fast into the hands of the target audience?

In A16 stable? I.e. the version people play because they don't want any changes to happen to their game? Is anyone so braindead to think this would be a good plan?

In A18.0? Where it probably will take another 20-60 iterations until it is declared stable and the target audience gets it?

Or in A17.60? A version that is soon to be declared stable (AFAIK). Soon in the hands of the target audience, right?

If I'm wrong, please explain.
The point of the post I was replying to is that we shouldn't panic because this is still the experimental branch and subject to further change. My point is that the people who could give the desired feedback for the change wouldn't see it until it became stable and most likely not subject to further change.

User avatar
jodokus31
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1229
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by jodokus31 »

meganothing wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:05 pm
Or in A17.60? A version that is soon to be declared stable (AFAIK). Soon in the hands of the target audience, right?
They could have wait after declaring 0.17 stable and then continue on 0.17 experimental branch with the change.
But i'm not so familiar with the branching strategy, if that's possible.

IIIByoIII
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 5
Joined: Sun Jul 28, 2019 4:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by IIIByoIII »

As many has stated, this is a rushed change.
I don't even try to explain what is wrong, all my fellow players in dozens of posts did it.
I'm just one of those who feel we are left without any choice. Now maybe Factorio will not get any major backlash from this change, but Wube will. The feeling of not listening to many of us who voiced our concerns gets us alienated from you.
Your company image is probably the best I heard of. Don't ruin it.
As many changes to the game as I can remember, each of them seemed to be logical and well thought through. This last one is definitely not. :(
Please listen to the feedback in the upcoming weeks and act accordingly. Remember, you said "nothing is set in stone", well I hope so.

meganothing
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 233
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by meganothing »

Aflixion wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 10:18 pm
The point of the post I was replying to is that we shouldn't panic because this is still the experimental branch and subject to further change. My point is that the people who could give the desired feedback for the change wouldn't see it until it became stable and most likely not subject to further change.
Ah, okay, that argument makes sense.

Though I don't agree with the last detail. A stable is followed by experimentals, where changes can be made, even those that take back previous changes.

The problem is now more about the measurement of success. At the moment we all have just opinions about what the change will accomplish. Facts will be available only after some time and a statistically relevant number of new users had a chance to play it. But will Wube remember to check the numbers again then? Hopefully. Maybe we have to remind them in half a year or so.

User avatar
BattleFluffy
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 171
Joined: Sun Mar 31, 2019 4:58 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by BattleFluffy »

I'm surprised the oil change went ahead after all the criticism, and disappointed because this guts Oil's complexity in megabases. :<

FuryoftheStars
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by FuryoftheStars »

Astrella wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:53 pm
FuryoftheStars wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:53 pm
Please feel free to tell me which part is a hyperbole.
The bit where you and several others in this thread are acting like a small change you don't agree with suddenly means a complete change in game design direction for Wube?
Well, putting aside the fact that we don't feel as though it is a small change, and that this isn't the first of its kind recently...

...that's not what I said in my post you quoted. My post was actually meant as a direct retort to the person I was quoting, not the changes themselves, though I do realize at this point that the wording was wrong and doesn't come across that way. Unfortunately, I'm lacking better words at this time.
Astrella wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 8:53 pm
Astrella wrote: ↑
Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:43 pm
It changes the way we play the game. "Finishing" the game isn't the fun part. It's the journey there. And this change does effect the flow and feel of the game.
But the elements you encounter in the journey are still the same is my point.
They're not the same. Basic oil processing has been almost completely gutted and there have been several techs that have been hit by the fallout of that in - what we consider to be - a bad way.

Schallfalke
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 162
Joined: Sun Oct 28, 2018 7:57 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Schallfalke »

Just a recommendation to devs.
When there are any "very" controversial/unsure/experimental features, can they be implemented as mods (instead of minor versions)?
Modding is not only done by players, but can be done by devs as well.

Just like Klonan has made some mods in the past, most(all?) of them are used and liked by players, and some of them are later integrated into vanilla game.
Devs can turn controversial features into mods first. I am sure these "official mods" will draw a lot of attention. Many players will like to play and test with them, and give comments after that. This way prevents the need of "pushing" controversial features, while still getting enough user feedback.

User avatar
Astrella
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 53
Joined: Wed Sep 16, 2015 11:33 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Astrella »

Schallfalke wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:19 am
Just a recommendation to devs.
When there are any "very" controversial/unsure/experimental features, can they be implemented as mods (instead of minor versions)?
Modding is not only done by players, but can be done by devs as well.
So you're saying the experimental releases aren't suited for experimental features? :P

Jap2.0
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 2333
Joined: Tue Jun 20, 2017 12:02 am
Contact:

Re: Version 0.17.60

Post by Jap2.0 »

Schallfalke wrote: ↑
Wed Jul 31, 2019 12:19 am
Just a recommendation to devs.
When there are any "very" controversial/unsure/experimental features, can they be implemented as mods (instead of minor versions)?
Modding is not only done by players, but can be done by devs as well.

Just like Klonan has made some mods in the past, most(all?) of them are used and liked by players, and some of them are later integrated into vanilla game.
Devs can turn controversial features into mods first. I am sure these "official mods" will draw a lot of attention. Many players will like to play and test with them, and give comments after that. This way prevents the need of "pushing" controversial features, while still getting enough user feedback.
It was made into an (official) mod. Then pushed a couple days later. Dozens of mods have been made around this in the last two weeks - it just didn't have any effect on when it made it into the base game.
There are 10 types of people: those who get this joke and those who don't.

Post Reply

Return to β€œReleases”