Friday Facts #245 - Campaign concept

[Avezo]

What about adding third robot type that would be used exclusively by player both as personal logistic and personal construction?

[zOldBulldog]

What about adding third robot type that would be used exclusively by player both as personal logistic and personal construction?

Interesting concept. But there would have to be some way to distinguish the personal robots that "stay with the player" for construction (limited in quantity to what the personal roboport(s) can support) and the ones doing logistic deliveries to the player (which could be hundreds, especially during mass-deconstructions / constructions of large blueprints).

[Sigma1]

Just a quick question; Will we finally get the spidertron?

[Jap2.0]

Just a quick question; Will we finally get the spidertron?

It's low priority for 0.17, so maybe then.

[GuiltyBystander]

please change it so you never unlock a recipe that you can't use.

That issues is more complex than you think it is. More lines make the tech tree more difficult to read, and many technologies would end up containing only one recipe because the others have different requirements.

While I agree with GuiltyBystander, the end result of this is actually that every recipe has its own research item. Also, interestingly maybe to some is that when I surveyed players (young,old, new and vets) most people actually enjoy the chaotic nature of the tech tree. I made a "clean" tech tree mod and most people preferred the stock one.
https://mods.factorio.com/mod/tech-trunk

The problem as I see it is that about 95% of the tree works like I would like. If nothing else, it feels like you're teaching the players to expect recipes to be usable. And if you're teaching players something that isn't true (even unintentionally), you're just setting them up for failure which is poor game design.

Most of the changes I'd like to see wouldn't affect gameplay at all. They wouldn't remove any of the players ability to decide how they want to play the game. It's super anticlimactic to research rocket silo then realize you can't build it because you're missing concrete. This isn't going to break gameplay experience by requiring them to research concrete first. They have to have it anyways.

If players want a chaotic tech tree, fine, but that's not what we have now. We just have an annoying tree that gives the illusion of choice then yanks the rug out from under you when you think you've just unlocked something but really haven't.

I see that some people think that this change would make the tree too cluttered and unreadable. I disagree, there's only about 10 links that need be added (maybe more/less, I haven't recalculated since 0.14), and most of the time you'll only see 1-2 of these at a time. The proposed change in the Friday Facts will add a lot more than that. Besides, the tech tree auto layout is amazing and makes it easy to find how things are linked even in large modpacks.

[bobingabout]

I like the split between high science and production.
Dislike the Logistics System still being locked behind yellow science.

Agreed, it should be blue science at the highest. IMO it makes having roboports and logistic robots completely pointless until yellow science.

Most of the changes I'd like to see wouldn't affect gameplay at all. They wouldn't remove any of the players ability to decide how they want to play the game. It's super anticlimactic to research rocket silo then realize you can't build it because you're missing concrete. This isn't going to break gameplay experience by requiring them to research concrete first. They have to have it anyways.

If players want a chaotic tech tree, fine, but that's not what we have now. We just have an annoying tree that gives the illusion of choice then yanks the rug out from under you when you think you've just unlocked something but really haven't.

I see that some people think that this change would make the tree too cluttered and unreadable. I disagree, there's only about 10 links that need be added (maybe more/less, I haven't recalculated since 0.14), and most of the time you'll only see 1-2 of these at a time. The proposed change in the Friday Facts will add a lot more than that. Besides, the tech tree auto layout is amazing and makes it easy to find how things are linked even in large modpacks.

I have to agree, it is pretty annoying to research something and find you don't actually have the ability to make all the required parts... isn't having the ability to make a required part... a prerequisite? it should be on the list.

There are some technologies (in my mod at least, I forget what changes I've made and what are base game now) that will unlock more than one recipe, and the requirements allow you to make all but one of them. I'm not entirely sure what to suggest in these situations. Splitting up techs could be an option.

[bobucles]

Having new technologies which are not linked anywhere to the main tree makes them incredibly hard to locate, so we decided against having them in their own tree.

I think a very simple solution is to simply extend the technology color coding system to include items in "effects" or even the potions themselves. If an item can be built, give it a green background. If it can't, give it a yellow or red background. It's a very simple system that shows what can or can't be built so the player immediately knows if a tech will work.

One way to extend the system is to have those items also be search buttons. If an item can not be built, clicking on it will bring you to the first prerequisite it can find. In this way you can open the rocket research, click on the rocket silo and go directly to the next thing you need.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I have a few points:

1.) Will the new HD science pack graphic be scaled down for the small versions? I much prefer the new, translucent fluid over the old opaque goop.

2.) I felt like production science was supposed to be earlier, like next to blue and military. High-tech is clearly far more advanced, and the thing that was bothering me mostly was that I couldn't choose production before blue because it required blue. So yes please make the choices clearer. Also offer more tech options with a given choice. There are about 2 or 3 important techs that require high-tech and not production; almost every high-tech research takes both. I don't feel like I have much choice on science packs when every tech uses every science pack type thus far. There's even non-military techs that use military science packs, for goodness sake.

3.) Here's an idea to set high-tech science apart: make it cost uranium-235. Provide some uses for uranium on military, blue, and production science, and have each uranium use also unlock the centrifuge. Then high-tech science is less tedious and resource intensive, and instead uses a new resource. This would go well with the idea that it's supposed to be at the same level as production science, because right now it costs like 3x as much per pack. Here's ideas for uranium uses:
- a - military science: uranium ammo, nerf it and remove the high tech science requirement because it's too strong anyway
- b - blue science: enhanced axe
- c - high tech science: Power Armor Mk II should cost some U-238 for all that damage resistance it gives you

4.) As for bots: I don't care if there's a new bot type added for personal roboports but it sounds like a cool idea so I'm on-board with it. But what I really want is to be able to put bots into the roboport module and not have them come out of my inventory. Also, I want them to not come out to repair my tank while I'm driving it. That little button to disable logistics while moving doesn't seem to work, but I want my suit essentially disabled entirely while I'm inside a vehicle. Vehicles should have their own equipment grids so I don't have to keep swapping my roboport in and out of the grid every time I get in my tank.

I have to agree, it is pretty annoying to research something and find you don't actually have the ability to make all the required parts... isn't having the ability to make a required part... a prerequisite? it should be on the list.

There are some technologies (in my mod at least, I forget what changes I've made and what are base game now) that will unlock more than one recipe, and the requirements allow you to make all but one of them. I'm not entirely sure what to suggest in these situations. Splitting up techs could be an option.

I have noticed that the devs seem to be trying to avoid adding in redundant unlocks. But I think it's a good idea to add a few. Sometimes it's good to have more than one place something unlocks. Rather than have it unlock at point X, you can have it unlock at both Y and Z which each require X as a prerequisite. That way you have to research either Y or Z to get it, but it doesn't matter which one.


And
5.) Justify the laser requirement on Military 3 by adding a Laser Rifle. There's a picture of one on the tech icon. Just make it have less DPS than the submachinegun, but longer range and slower rate of fire. It can be used for sniping and kiting, or for breaking through biter resistances. Or just because you like shooting lasers. Also move combat shotgun to Military 2.

[eradicator]

please change it so you never unlock a recipe that you can't use.

That issues is more complex than you think it is.

While I agree with GuiltyBystander [...]

Oh i most certainly agree with him too. As far as i know i'm also the only one who ever attempted to make a procedural fix for it that would work with all mods. A foolish attempt in hindsight :p. After seeing the result of the initial prototype i was pretty convinced that it can't be done (automatically) without creating a mess of lines and/or a technology for every single recipe. Both of which are undesirable. I'd still love a solution, i just don't know a good one.

Most of the changes I'd like to see wouldn't affect gameplay at all. They wouldn't remove any of the players ability to decide how they want to play the game. It's super anticlimactic to research rocket silo then realize you can't build it because you're missing concrete. This isn't going to break gameplay experience by requiring them to research concrete first. They have to have it anyways.

It's funny that you should mention the rocket silo of all the things. Because it's one of the easier fallacies, and also one i fell for first before i made my attempt to automatically fix all dependencies. The problem is that "rocket silo (technology)" amongst other things also unlocks rocket fuel which is usable without concrete. So either you're locking rocket fuel behind concrete (acceptable compromise), or you split off the fuel into a single-recipe technology (ugly). Btw, if you really think it's just 10-ish connections to fix vanilla, make a demo mod and post it here. I'd be interested to see that and it'll make it much more likely to ever happen in vanilla ;). Also this is much worse in large complex mods that offer multiple (early and late game) ways to produce certain intermediates. And because factorio knows no "either or" type tech dependencies this is impossible to fix.

I like @bobucles's idea to color code recipes by craftibility. Would be nice if clicking on (in the tech view ) a recipe with missing ingredient research brought up a tech tree for just that recipe. If the technology view can't accomodate that then maybe the recipe browser(?) that was mentioned in an earlier FFF can.

[eradicator]

Hi @abregado and thanks for your reply, too. Actually you're the first dev ever to have answered to one of my often lengthy FFF comments. And i don't even recognize your name. Shame on me p;. Are you "in charge" of the new campaign?

Your diagram is nice, but I think you will be pleasantly surprised with what we come up with.

I like pleasant suprises :). The graphic was only meant as a general demonstration. One png says more than 1000 LoC ;).

The idea of giving players items before they can make them themselves is also tricky as it really messes with the dependencies.

Tricky? Absolutely. But if done right it might still be worth it. My idea here was that you give the player a limited supply of something shortly before they get access (both tech and resources patches) to something to get the player "hooked" on i.e. red circuits. This imho has the potential of turning the usual "oh great, and now i have to set up all of oil processing to get even one red circuit" into a situation where the player is both less stressed about having to set up oil processing because they already have a small supply, and more incentivized because now the reason to build oil is not to get some new stuff they've never used (= new stuff for what?), but to keep their already existing factory (= i already know what this does!) that requires red circuits running. It's kind of like how "modern" RPGs often have a tutorial level where you play a mid-level character that already has some skills and equipment before the actual game begins with a level one hero. A combination of "motivation by preview" and hand-holding. Also i'm very specifically thinking about the bridge between green and blue science here, because of the huge "gap" that i percieve is created by having to jump from no oil production at all to full advanced processing. Or maybe i'm just saying "learning curve is nice and all, but don't forget about motivational curve", because my personal one plummets before blue science. every. single. time.

The same goes for "technologies which act differently, aka auto unlock". This late in development it would be prudent to change how technology works.

True. I just always thought of bottles more of a bonus that just happens to come along when you research the ingredients for them, than of something i specifically target my research effort on. I'll have to wait and see how it feels i guess.

We cant find any voice actors of the species that the Avatar comes from...

That's where the "acting" part comes in. :P Though i'd really be interesting in an actual answer to this (→ voice nerd). Too much effort/cost to do multi-language voice acting? Or do you devs just not feel the need for it? Or maybe something else?

Well, I based my research on Steam statistics because there is no other data. There is a lot of discussion in here about that being a terrible way to go, and I agree.

Funnily i don't agree. Because i firmly believe in a "vocal minority/silent majority" distribution as far as games go. So going by steam statistics is totally fine (especially lacking any other data :P). Though it would be interesting to know what the ratio is between "people on steam that you can get data on" and "actual units of the game sold", mind to enlighten me (us) on that?

[Triaxx2]

What we really need is to have the option from the auto-research mod (the name escapes me) which lets you filter by the available science packs. So you can have it show you red sciences, which shows all the researches that only use red. Green would show those as well, and so you can see. Okay, one of these techs unlocks Blue.

[Jap2.0]

Funnily i don't agree. Because i firmly believe in a "vocal minority/silent majority" distribution as far as games go. So going by steam statistics is totally fine (especially lacking any other data ).

It's a good place to start, but I'd still say it's significantly inaccurate. RSO has over 523,000 downloads - about half of Factorio's playerbase. FARL 249,000, Bottleneck 243,000, upgrade planner 229,000. Modding isn't exactly done by an insignificant part of Factorio's playerbase. Then add people who largely play the non-Steam version, people who have been using mods since before the Steam release and won't go back, etc.

[zOldBulldog]

Funnily i don't agree. Because i firmly believe in a "vocal minority/silent majority" distribution as far as games go. So going by steam statistics is totally fine (especially lacking any other data ).

It's a good place to start, but I'd still say it's significantly inaccurate. RSO has over 523,000 downloads - about half of Factorio's playerbase. FARL 249,000, Bottleneck 243,000, upgrade planner 229,000. Modding isn't exactly done by an insignificant part of Factorio's playerbase. Then add people who largely play the non-Steam version, people who have been using mods since before the Steam release and won't go back, etc.

I agree. The only reason I am still playing vanilla is that I still have some achievements to complete. Otherwise I'd already be using RSO and some other mods that make the game far superior to vanilla.

[herkalurk]

Funnily i don't agree. Because i firmly believe in a "vocal minority/silent majority" distribution as far as games go. So going by steam statistics is totally fine (especially lacking any other data ).

It's a good place to start, but I'd still say it's significantly inaccurate. RSO has over 523,000 downloads - about half of Factorio's playerbase. FARL 249,000, Bottleneck 243,000, upgrade planner 229,000. Modding isn't exactly done by an insignificant part of Factorio's playerbase. Then add people who largely play the non-Steam version, people who have been using mods since before the Steam release and won't go back, etc.

I agree. The only reason I am still playing vanilla is that I still have some achievements to complete. Otherwise I'd already be using RSO and some other mods that make the game far superior to vanilla.

I never wanted to use mods that were coming in later releases. I held off using a train tank mod because it was confirmed it was going to be released in the future.

[zOldBulldog]

Funnily i don't agree. Because i firmly believe in a "vocal minority/silent majority" distribution as far as games go. So going by steam statistics is totally fine (especially lacking any other data ).

It's a good place to start, but I'd still say it's significantly inaccurate. RSO has over 523,000 downloads - about half of Factorio's playerbase. FARL 249,000, Bottleneck 243,000, upgrade planner 229,000. Modding isn't exactly done by an insignificant part of Factorio's playerbase. Then add people who largely play the non-Steam version, people who have been using mods since before the Steam release and won't go back, etc.

I agree. The only reason I am still playing vanilla is that I still have some achievements to complete. Otherwise I'd already be using RSO and some other mods that make the game far superior to vanilla.

I never wanted to use mods that were coming in later releases. I held off using a train tank mod because it was confirmed it was going to be released in the future.

I would rather not use mods too, but some - like RSO - are essential due to major deficiencies in the core game. So as soon as I can... I will.

[eradicator]

Funnily i don't agree. Because i firmly believe in a "vocal minority/silent majority" distribution as far as games go. So going by steam statistics is totally fine (especially lacking any other data :P).

It's a good place to start, but I'd still say it's significantly inaccurate. RSO has over 523,000 downloads - about half of Factorio's playerbase. FARL 249,000, Bottleneck 243,000, upgrade planner 229,000. Then add people who largely play the non-Steam version, people who have been using mods since before the Steam release and won't go back, etc.

Your using the total download count and pretend it's the total number of people who ever used RSO. The real number is probably closer to 50~100k people who downloaded 5~10 updates each. Just look at the per version downloads. Personally i've probably downloaded it 10+ times even though i haven't actually played a lot with it (mp, updates, reinstallations).

Statistics

Code: Select all

Download counts for Resource Spawner Overhaul as per the mod portal (these are obviously incomplete):
3.7.3	0.16	Download	4 days ago	4806
3.7.2	0.16	Download	13 days ago	10385
3.7.1	0.16	Download	13 days ago	657
3.7.0	0.16	Download	20 days ago	8694
3.6.5	0.16	Download	25 days ago	5687
3.6.4	0.16	Download	30 days ago	7175
3.5.14	0.16	Download	a month ago	18862
3.4.8	0.15	Download	6 months ago	29547
2.3.5	0.14	Download	1 year, 2 months ago	33605

Modding isn't exactly done by an insignificant part of Factorio's playerbase.

I think you're experiencing a strong filter bubble/echo champer effect there. You don't know a significant part of the playerbase, and this forum is clearly part of the vocal minority. But, you're free to believe whatever you want. As long as neither of us has any usable numbers on the subject - and i'd be very interested in usable numbers - we won't know. And so i will keep believing that "modding" for any game is only done by small amount of people (<10%). Admittedly because factorio has official mod integration right in the game itself it probably has a significantly higher than average percentage (<20%) of people who have used at least one mod at least once. But it's still highly likely that most people only try mods after having played vanilla and having gotten some basic achievements, and thus still provide viable steam data. Personally i still play a fair share of vanilla even though i make mods. So all things considered i think the "steam sample" is sufficiently representative (no sample is ever perfectly representative).
Just ask yourself this: Out of all the games you own, how many do you know have some sort of modding community? And how many of those have you actually tried mods on? And how many for what percentage of your total play time?

[Stlyau]

I'm not really sure you can look at the "11% of Steam has launched a rocket" as a valid stat. How many people playing through Steam, install some QoL mod long before they ever make it to rocket launch? I bet this is much higher than most would think. By installing just one QoL mod (SqueakThrough, Long Reach, AfraidoftheDark, etc.), the player is in turn disabling any further Steam achievement acquisition. This one fact skews the whole validity of "only 11% of Steam have launched a rocket". I personally didn't install a mod until after having every achievement but No Spoon and No Chit Chat. I still don't have these for the sole reason I would rather get them playing solo than in a multiplayer game. I want the satisfaction of knowing I completed it myself without help.

[thereaverofdarkness]

I haven't launched a rocket. I could have launched one ages ago but that's not why I play the game.

[herkalurk]

I haven't launched a rocket. I could have launched one ages ago but that's not why I play the game.

I have launched nearly 6000. I'm finding ways to make it so I can just continually produce the necessary pieces without backups and feed my 44 rocket silos.

[Jap2.0]

Funnily i don't agree. Because i firmly believe in a "vocal minority/silent majority" distribution as far as games go. So going by steam statistics is totally fine (especially lacking any other data ).

It's a good place to start, but I'd still say it's significantly inaccurate. RSO has over 523,000 downloads - about half of Factorio's playerbase. FARL 249,000, Bottleneck 243,000, upgrade planner 229,000. Then add people who largely play the non-Steam version, people who have been using mods since before the Steam release and won't go back, etc.

Your using the total download count and pretend it's the total number of people who ever used RSO. The real number is probably closer to 50~100k people who downloaded 5~10 updates each. Just look at the per version downloads. Personally i've probably downloaded it 10+ times even though i haven't actually played a lot with it (mp, updates, reinstallations).

Statistics

Code: Select all

Download counts for Resource Spawner Overhaul as per the mod portal (these are obviously incomplete):
3.7.3	0.16	Download	4 days ago	4806
3.7.2	0.16	Download	13 days ago	10385
3.7.1	0.16	Download	13 days ago	657
3.7.0	0.16	Download	20 days ago	8694
3.6.5	0.16	Download	25 days ago	5687
3.6.4	0.16	Download	30 days ago	7175
3.5.14	0.16	Download	a month ago	18862
3.4.8	0.15	Download	6 months ago	29547
2.3.5	0.14	Download	1 year, 2 months ago	33605

That's true, perhaps that is a bit of an overestimate. I find it strange, through, that the mod portal lists less than 100,000 downloads of RSO, while in-game the number is more than five times that.