Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

[DanGio]

A little out of the blue... Here's a small thought for the actual destroyer lightning beam. I understand it's better to make it the same as the turrets because they share technology, but it was a really nice lightning beam. It's a wonderful electric beam and I'm glad you keep it as it is

[posila]

A little out of the blue... Here's a small thought for the actual destroyer lightning beam. I understand it's better to make it the same as the turrets because they share technology, but it was a really nice lightning beam.

The robots with lasers on the picture are Distractors (the ones that don't follow you and have laser projectiles in 0.16), electric beam of Destroyers has not changed visually (we might have added some extra glow effect, I don't remember if that was in 0.16 already)

[featherwinglove]

A little out of the blue... Here's a small thought for the actual destroyer lightning beam. I understand it's better to make it the same as the turrets because they share technology, but it was a really nice lightning beam.

The one to celebrate is how Outpost 2: Divided Destiny did Thor's Hammer. The mechanics were moldy cheese compared to the graphics, but when that sucker lit off, you knew someone was getting hurt. In one of the Plymouth free play scenarios, if you saw one of those distinctive white electrodes coming around the corner and all you had to meet it were microwave Lynx, the least frustrating thing to do is quit and start over before the shooting started.

[Lizzy]

Fluids as ingredients make some sense but it's super ugly in the crafting menu because that science pack immediately gets red background because you can't hand-craft it. If all of the higher tier science packs had that, it'd kind of look fine.

Well that's easy. Just make them all explicitly "can't hand-craft" like the engine unit. That's already true for white packs anyway.

[Lizzy]

featherwinglove, quit acting like you represent entire audience,

This is curious for a first post.

Well, his curious first post mirrored my thoughts perfectly. When you claim to speak in name of the community, that is patently false, because I am part of it, and I disagree. You are only entitled to speak for yourself, just like anyone else.

And while we're at this, I definitely won't miss having to craft pickaxes!

[Acacel]

Hello, after readind the FFF I have a small question:

You say:

Mainly for these reasons, you now win the game by launching an empty rocket. The satellite is unlocked with the Space science pack technology and its only purpose is obtaining these science packs.

Does this mean to win the game the rocket needs to be empty? Or is it also possible to win the game with a satelite or something else in it?
I like message that the game is now at its desinged end but you can feel free to play some more days (and therefore i don´t want to sent a empty rocket wasting the 1k Space science).

[Klonan]

Does this mean to win the game the rocket needs to be empty? Or is it also possible to win the game with a satelite or something else in it?
I like message that the game is now at its desinged end but you can feel free to play some more days (and therefore i don´t want to sent a empty rocket wasting the 1k Space science).

You will win either way, whether it has any items inside or not.
If you send a satellite with your first rocket, you will get the science as expected

[Avezo]

The more I think about blue science, the more I think solid fuel might be actually a good idea (still would like fluids more), as it's actually a very simple production chain... Unlike red circuits. Setting them alone is huge step up from previous science packs, so if the goal is to make transition to blue science smoother, red circuits have to be gone from the recipe.

THEN, having 'chemical' science packs rolling, player would be upgrading 'chemical' parts of the factory with it.

Now I think that blue science should be (if no fluids are allowed in the recipe) - solid fuel, pipe, empty barrel (seriously, give us a way to get rid of empty barrels). Push red circuits to some higher science pack recipe.

[featherwinglove]

featherwinglove, quit acting like you represent entire audience,

This is curious for a first post.

Well, his curious first post mirrored my thoughts perfectly. When you claim to speak in name of the community, that is patently false, because I am part of it, and I disagree. You are only entitled to speak for yourself, just like anyone else.

You're overstating my representation: I'm not speaking on behalf of the core players, I'm claiming that they're being ignored as a group. There might be some core players who agree with everything in FFF#266 wholeheartedly, but the devs haven't come out affirming them, or attempting to use their reasoning in an effort to persuade the miffed players that their decisions are the best ones ...they haven't said much at all aside from the FFF itself, and that's the evidence that the players are being ignored in general, not just me. The other side are the people who are against the changes have put together larger, stronger, and more numerous arguments...

And while we're at this, I definitely won't miss having to craft pickaxes!

...including at least three detailed proposals to satisfy both sides: remove axes from vanilla while still having them available to modders. At this point, I'll ask you the same question I've asked everyone who I find it is overrepresenting the audience in general: Just because you hate axes, does that mean everyone should be deprived of them?

[Mike5000]

Just because you hate axes, does that mean everyone should be deprived of them?

This is at the core of nearly every case of foot in mouth disease at Wube.

Random dev hates X or thinks X is OP and decides to remove X or gate X behind yellow science - thus crippling the game for those who love X and want X early while adding nothing for those who hate X or think X OP and were always free to ignore X.

High tier science colors would be better organized as Rail Tech, Bot Tech, Beacon Tech etc to better accommodate different people's preferred play styles.

[MyNameIsTrez]

I don't like the fact that Space Science takes military science to research, because it means there'll be 1 recipe where you need to produce military science for in a peaceful world. It also doesn't make sense if you think about it.

[featherwinglove]

High tier science colors would be better organized as Rail Tech, Bot Tech, Beacon Tech etc to better accommodate different people's preferred play styles.

Something clicks about this: It's so brilliant I'm like for not having realized it before you. The way I play is pretty interesting: I generally make the environment so difficult to deal with that my automation tends to stay at a fairly small scale, and I'm very good at moving things around without logistics bots, although I do resort to them in the very late game because I have some mass-consumed device that is so complex to make that there is no other practical way. (My latest mod packs' lab ingredient count goes all the way up to ten, and I'm not sure how I'm going to feed my labs when the time comes.) It is therefore, for me, quite interesting to have the option to put off logistics robotics in favour of other capabilities, especially cars, tanks, trucks, trains, and aircraft (actual player-in-vehicle aircraft provided by mods.)

[Nemoricus]

On the whole, this particular update is one where I'm in a mood to wait and see, since it's hard to gauge how the changes to science will feel without playing with the recipes in game. But, some of the things mentioned in this thread do warrant some comment, though.

Science pack names: While on one hand I don't particularly care what these are called, since their color is an effective enough identifier, I'm not sure that naming them for what they're supposed to be used for is a great idea. For example, Automation Packs are not just used for automation, but for every single other technology in the game. Thus, the pack's connection with automation becomes tenuous at best. Perhaps naming them after the kinds of ingredients that go into them would make sense, but I'll admit that I don't really have a good idea here.

Launching rockets without payloads: I agree with other posters that the best solution to this would be to require that the rocket have a payload before it can be launched. Perhaps a message could be shown saying "Error: No payload loaded" and one of those triangular error signs flashing over the silo. To address the problem of the payload slot only being shown when the rocket is complete, perhaps it would make more sense to always show the payload slot?

Controversial topics: The discussion around changes like the removal of ingredient limits for different assembling machine tiers has certainly become heated, and certainly inappropriately so at points. That said, I would like to see the developers address the objections to the most controversial changes, since amid the outcry there were many legitimate points being made. Even if they decide to go ahead with the changes as planned, it would be fair to acknowledge that there has been criticism. For the community, I would like to ask that people relax, and remember that changes you don't agree with are not the end of the world.

[Avezo]

You're overstating my representation: I'm not speaking on behalf of the core players, I'm claiming that they're being ignored as a group. There might be some core players who agree with everything in FFF#266 wholeheartedly, but the devs haven't come out affirming them, or attempting to use their reasoning in an effort to persuade the miffed players that their decisions are the best ones ...they haven't said much at all aside from the FFF itself, and that's the evidence that the players are being ignored in general, not just me. The other side are the people who are against the changes have put together larger, stronger, and more numerous arguments...

I wonder, do my 2101 played hours make me a 'core player'? Or am I just one of those 'There might be some core players who agree (...)'??? Or maybe I'm just a filthy casual scrub, dunno? Tell me what do you think of me, pretty please.

If there is anyone ignoring others, it's someone thinking he represents majority - I feel ignored by self-proclaimed 'core-players' when they talk like that.

I, a 2101-hour-player (and counting) say that pickaxe removal was good and so is this FFF. It merely needs tweaking. Especially blue science dependency on red circuits.

Remember one thing - players who are happy with changes are just silently content, it's just those who aren't that make themselves vocal on forums. Vocality in responses doesn't mean anything in terms of actual playerbase preferences. I say it as someone who poured some emo-shit over FFF in the past too. I matured since then, just saying (and hinting). Devs here are amazing, even when I feel like *I* know better...

Actually they have job offers open atm I think? Feel free to apply if any of you think you can do better, ok?

[Mike5000]

I, a 2101-hour-player (and counting) say that pickaxe removal was good

Removing pickaxes saves you approximately 30 seconds in 2101 hours, costs Bob a few hundred hours extra work, and hurts thousands of other players.

Removal of pickaxes is extremely not good.

A possible good solution for those who want Factorio to be simpler would have been to default pickaxes to not wearing out in Vanilla while retaining the underlying game mechanics for use by modders.

[Maxi3000]

The role of the rulemakers in an open forum is, mostly, to say "no, this is not up for discussion at this moment" or "yeah, that's worth thinking about". That doesn't make it less frustrating when the answer is no, but I'm happier if they spend their more of time making the game better and less of it sugar-coating their nos.

That's exactly the point.
Wube does a great job presenting their changes, ideas and thoughts. They haven't to do it, but they do because they want to discuss with the community.

Removing pickaxes saves you approximately 30 seconds in 2101 hours, costs Bob a few hundred hours extra work, and hurts thousands of other players.
Removal of pickaxes is extremely not good.

A possible good solution for those who want Factorio to be simpler would have been to default pickaxes to not wearing out in Vanilla while retaining the underlying game mechanics for use by modders.

Sorry, but I don't think so. The pickaxe in vanilla has just no impact in the game, it makes no sense anymore to keep it. Bob must refactor his mod on a version update anyway, if there is no pickaxe slot anymore, then he removes the item and move the new speed to the technologies. This is one of his smallest problems.

[Avezo]

I, a 2101-hour-player (and counting) say that pickaxe removal was good

Removing pickaxes saves you approximately 30 seconds in 2101 hours, costs Bob a few hundred hours extra work, and hurts thousands of other players.

Why would ANY game be balanced around mods? Mods are supposed to adjust to the core game, not other way around.

A possible good solution for those who want Factorio to be simpler would have been to default pickaxes to not wearing out in Vanilla while retaining the underlying game mechanics for use by modders.

It's not about the game becoming 'simplier', it's about progression becoming 'smoother'.

[gotyoke]

I really like seeing the care and thought the devs bring to these kinds of topics and decisions.

One thing that jumped out to me as out of balance was the amount of steel needed for Production science. It's not at all on par with the 30 copper cable needed for high-tech science in 0.16, not even close. People above are tossing around a "belt of steel" as if it's trivial. To get enough steel plate to feed the rail assemblers you'll need a gigantic increase in iron mining and smelting. Now granted the new LDS recipe alleviates the problem some, except now you also need LDS--and hence more steel--for Utility science. It shifts the need for mass steel to be earlier in the game, which is a problem for both new players and speedrunners.

[Schallfalke]

This FFF will gives a general improvement to the game. Current science pack has two systems of naming convention (number & purpose) will makes confusion, so really needs a renaming. Although this may make a pain to some complex mods, but since the game is still in "early access", this kind of changes is necessary and I agree to that. (Although it will also cause some work to my mods as well...)

There are some specific goods and bads that I want to emphasize:

1. FFF said Personal Laser Defense (PLD) has decreased power consumption. But many players in forum and I actually feel PLD and laser turret use too few in power, especially for late-game... Current laser turret costs 800kJ each shot with 20 base damage. Current PLD costs 200kJ for 75 fixed damage. Are these numbers directly correlated in 0.17? Also, are there any plans to scale power consumption with damage increase? (Such as +100% damage bonus will consume (1+100%)=200% energy consumption each shot.)
2. "Utility" science sounds too general and unrelated to late-game at all. (For example, repair pack is within "utility" category in our common sense.) Even some generic name like "Advanced" (like the red circuit) will give a much better impression.
3. To prevent new players launching empty rocket.... Just not allowing launching (like disable "Launch" button) if cargo is empty. Not really hard to do. Another way is if they try to do so, print a message telling them to put in a satellite (like "Requires cargo (e.g., satellite) to launch" at the lower-left message box.) Both way are much better than allow skipping satellite to win IMO.
4. Military science pack removal from Rocket Silo line, IMO, is not a good idea. Historically, developing rockets took a lot of military resources (ranging from aeronautic engineers to military-grade items). I wonder if peaceful-mode builders will not be tempted to go for Power armor MK2 for a large grid, in order to have more exoskeletons to run quickly? EDITED
5. All science packs recipes are fine to me, EXCEPT the the recipe of production science... 30 out of 32 ingredients on the input belt being rails? I have no objections in using rails, but please consider other options and/or reduce the number greatly! For example, if you want to keep the "stone consumption", 1 stone brick = 2 stone, which (together with iron/steel) makes up 4 rails. 8 stone brick + maybe 8 steel look better than 30 rails as input. (But still not as beautiful as the other new recipes...) The other way would be adding some new intermediate component (like the current rocket control unit that have no use other than for rocket part).
6. Science packs having recipes 1× 2× 3×, is not really helpful to new players about such "ordering". Rather, the strange ratios in recipes will just confuse them even more. I could imagine those new players who are not good in math, will have problem in making chemical science pack. 1/2, 3/2, 2/2? All suddenly come take their mind.
7. Removal of tech "gun turret damage" is a very good thing. This bonus always frustrate me when I was making weaponry balance in mods, since gun turret damage increases much faster than other weaponry if all infinite techs are researched "evenly". For each level in every infinite tech, the damage bonus are: +110% for gun turret (+bullet). +70% for laser turret. +50% for most ammo. +40% for machine guns. To balance BEFORE infinite tech is even a bigger nightmare, since each upgrade line has their own different numbers. Therefore, I really glad the developers are investigating into this mess for 0.17!!!
8. My last point: please keep smooth weapon upgrades bonus in tech. Let's say, if Explosives lv 1 gives +20% damage bonus to rocket, then keep such bonus be flat +20%, or something smooth like +25%, +30%, +35%, etc, in the following levels. Please do not have "holes" or fluctuating bonus. This will let players and modders (and possible developers as well) easier to play with the game.

Thanks for using your valuable time reading my wall of comments.

[Darci of Mountain]

First: I do agree with the lack of reasons to use Gun Turrets, it wans't good before, but it is even worse now... At least before we could "double research" the damage bonuses...
The game is all about logistics and automation. Laser turrets just needs a power pole. It has better hitpoints, more range, etc. (Now it will even lack the "bullet" travel time that used to make gun turrets more efficient at insta kills, it is an assumption, but if it is a beam now, there will be no travel) "But it requires more power!" Just place more solar panels that are as boring as the turrets. Or go nuclear. There is a gigantic overhead for using gun turrets that I find challenging, you need more power coz you need a BIGGER FACTORY (oh yeah).

Something as simple as a turret mk2 equal to a laser turret would be enough. You will not trigger the lazy laser people and you will make it more rewarding for those that want to go nuts with the complexity/cost overhead. (You already expressed your will to make "the hard way" more rewarding - Bots vs Belts anyone? - but no, no nerfs. Stay as it is or new options)

Second: I find that the default go to button after a tab in the "Forgot pass page" being the reset is completely offensive and infuriating. HAHAHAHA I had to rewrite everything tree times because I am dumb and didn't realize what happened.

Third: It is your game, you do what you gotta do. People tend to forget what an alpha/beta/early access is and then lose their mind. Even modders trying to rule the devs, this is just shameful. "You make your game as I wish or I will keep telling my friends not to buy it! Hmpf!"