Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

[gleard]

Advanced oil is going to get rushed. The current tech tree demands more petrol than basic oil can ever provide. <...>

There are only two in game tech solutions for this. One breaks down the petrol barrier all together and gives an unlimited supply of petrol so the player never has petrol problems ever again. The other gives a tiny boost of petrol, but it kicks the player in the nuts for daring to build a factory. [The second] choice isn't good enough to justify using, and that's just bad.

Excuse me, but I'd say you persistently mix up two different things.
If you are setting up coal liquefaction to get more gas, then it shouldn't bother you that you lose in terms of energy. That's not "kicking in the nuts", that's a reasonable decision that a player can make depending on what he currently needs more: energy or gas.
If anything, it seems to me a better game design decision, as it doesn't compulse players to switch all boiler-destined coal into liquefaction every time in every situation, but gives an option that depends on the needs.

I agree that it's an interesting idea to move coal liquefaction much earlier in the tree, and also, as someone suggested somewhere on the forum, move AOP later in the tree, and also make it a bit less net oil output (but more total gas after cracking).
But I see no substantial reason to make coal liquefaction energy-positive.

[Ferlonas]

Just chiming in with another idea:

Can we have some rails as ingredient for military science instead? I want to research rail guns. The walls are obviously test targets.

[jodokus31]

Coal cracking needs a buff, and not even a major game breaking buff at that. All it needs is a little extra splash of output

If I understand the FFF correctly, Coal liquefaction gets a buff:

Coal liquefaction - very useful when you have a lot of coal but not enough oil. The Coal liquefaction recipe is also changed so it’s more useful - now it produces much more Heavy oil that you can crack into whatever you need, but produces less Light oil and Petroleum gas. If we cracked everything to petroleum, the maximum gain is almost doubled compared to 0.16.

However, it depends on heavy/light cracking to be really useful.
And I don't know, what has changed exactly.

[Nemoricus]

I'll add that, since coal liquefaction produces light oil, it adds to the problem of using up light oil without cracking. You can buff it all you like, but without sinks for light oil, you still run into the problem of stalling oil production. If the next version really does shift the output to a heavy oil rich blend of products, then you're still going to need cracking to make effective use of it, given how much demand there is for petroleum gas as opposed to light or heavy oil.

As for the energy balance of the coal liquefaction process...I don't think it matters much. I've launched a rocket with only coal fired steam engines providing power, and never felt that I was stressing my resources by doing so. While I've never used coal liquefaction, the fact that it is a more effective way to generate petroleum gas from heavy oil than simply cracking it is interesting to me. That's probably well worth the energy investment, given the demand for petroleum gas.

Now, these are observations based on the current recipes in the game. I still think that making better use of heavy oil, light oil, and petroleum gas as separate products would be preferable to the current state where advanced oil processing is all but required to avoid stalling production.

[Tricorius]

Coal cracking needs a buff, and not even a major game breaking buff at that. All it needs is a little extra splash of output

If I understand the FFF correctly, Coal liquefaction gets a buff:

Coal liquefaction - very useful when you have a lot of coal but not enough oil. The Coal liquefaction recipe is also changed so it’s more useful - now it produces much more Heavy oil that you can crack into whatever you need, but produces less Light oil and Petroleum gas. If we cracked everything to petroleum, the maximum gain is almost doubled compared to 0.16.

However, it depends on heavy/light cracking to be really useful.
And I don't know, what has changed exactly.

I gather this is partially intended as a hint to convert that additional heavy into solid fuel (as I vaguely recall the use of the red solid fuel recipe in the science pack...unless it is a placeholder for some generic solid fuel recipe indicator, but I doubt that).

But yes, of course you can also crack it.

But as to the original oil liquefaction recipe... I’m not a min/maxer, but I do love throwing production modules into my oil setups. Isn’t that pretty much the main way of taking something which might have been producing an inferior ratio and tipping the scale toward a much more positive result?

Now, these are observations based on the current recipes in the game. I still think that making better use of heavy oil, light oil, and petroleum gas as separate products would be preferable to the current state where advanced oil processing is all but required to avoid stalling production.

I think this is being addressed by adding the solid fuel to the science pack.

I don’t understand why solid fuel seems so taboo on these forums. It is a wonderful way to process fuel overages. I like it so much that it is the *first* fuel product I set up. I setup circuit controls to convert each type of fuel, if needed, when I get overages above my tolerances for each type of fuel.

I don’t rush to advanced oil these days.

I disagree that converting a base to solid fuel is difficult. I already play with universal fuel belts snaking throughout my starter base. Easy to merge solid fuel into the coal line, with a priority of solid fuel. The only “trick” is that you need a separate uncontaminated coal line for ingredients to coal recipies.

Otherwise a “fuel” line can be cleanly mixed and burner energy sources will sort it out themselves based on what is available on the lines (I also merge burnable wood products into key locations of this line as well, for disposal).

The fuel line feeds steam power (later on isolated switch as backup power), early smelting, and trains (end game fuel sources make the train line a smidgen trickier, but nothing filter splitters can’t handle).

Granted, these puzzles will be trickier for new/casual players. Oil mystified me at first, but I want to see the campaign before I make any judgements in that regard. It is a bit tricky anyway due to biases I have after so much time in Factorio. But I think teaching these things up front will be great for a new player that gets “stuck” on certain things.

[Nemoricus]

Now, these are observations based on the current recipes in the game. I still think that making better use of heavy oil, light oil, and petroleum gas as separate products would be preferable to the current state where advanced oil processing is all but required to avoid stalling production.

I think this is being addressed by adding the solid fuel to the science pack.

Not exactly. While adding solid fuel adds a use to light oil, it's not a separate use, since that recipe also includes advanced circuits, which require petroleum gas. Indeed, any use of light oil in science is not a separate use, since petroleum gas is used in a number of products that are used for science. By contrast, the use of heavy oil to make lubricant for express belts is a fully separate use, since you do not need light oil or petroleum gas in any part of the process.

Similarly, since producing express splitters and robots requires petroleum gas (plastic for advanced circuits and sulfuric acid for batteries respectively) in their manufacture, those are not separate uses for heavy oil, despite both requiring lubricant.

Having fully separate uses is important, since if you are overproducing one, having such uses allows for it to be consumed without affecting the others.

I don’t understand why solid fuel seems so taboo on these forums.

I can't speak for anyone but myself, especially since I've not been keeping up with what others have been doing, but the major reason I don't switch over to solid fuel is that coal is good enough. And while it may not be particularly difficult to make the switch, it still takes time and attention that could be devoted to other areas of the game. So, I just don't feel that the investment is worthwhile.

[catma]

I had a nerdgasm of the "OMG I CAN FINALLY PLAY AngelBobSpaceX despite the fact FNEI MOD ISN'T ENOUGH TO MAKE IT PLAYABLE" sort.

I dreamed the 2000+ hours worth of playthru I am committed to once this roadmap addition is in:

"Recipe tree GUI (Oxyd). This should be the foundation of some kind of ingame factoriopedia."

Unfortunately, that CRITICAL improvement hasn't happened yet, and AngelBobSpaceX can't be parsed by a mind such as mine even after 84 hours and 23 minutes of trying.

We need this, Onyx. Don't release 0.17 without the FACTORIOPEDIA RECIPE TREE MAKER!!! If it were a DLC costing an arm and a leg, I'd start wondering which arm and leg are more expendable...

Angel Bob's recipes is not just a tree it's more like a network with byproducts that loops around and different alternatives do craft the same thing... It's super fun!

Consider my entire family FNEI-dyslexic and not otherwise handicapped. It seems OTHER people can use it.We put it at a test at UQAM, 4 out of 7 people who played factorio a lot before managed to use FNEI without effort while 3 were completely unable to figure out 2 recipes ahead due to short term memory issues where a chart or network would be crucially useful.

[Zalminen]

I get it that new players, for whom main focus of changes is at the moment might go for flamethrowers, but... Where the hell does that impression that any player, new or not, would rush for automating battery production? It's very complex recipe - from raw resources to final product, and, in practical uses it's merely couple items that actually need them.

I automated battery production pretty early in my first game. For me they were the reason why I built my first oil refinery!

Researching solar panels only required red and green science packs so I had them researched way before even thinking about getting blue science. And as solar panels seemed very useful I quickly built a production line for them.
Except that the panels I'd placed only worked during the day. Ok, the research tree had accumulators which would solve the problem! But to build them I needed batteries and to build those I needed sulfuric acid which needed sulfur which needed petroleum gas. Which led to me to research and build the whole oil refining process. Just to get the batteries I needed to actually make full use of solar power.

I only added plastic production much later when I started needing red circuits.

[Tricorius]

I get it that new players, for whom main focus of changes is at the moment might go for flamethrowers, but... Where the hell does that impression that any player, new or not, would rush for automating battery production? It's very complex recipe - from raw resources to final product, and, in practical uses it's merely couple items that actually need them.

It is true there are only a few items (accumulators, laser turrets, flying robot frames, and personal roboports, if I recall correctly). I don’t recall how much that changes in 0.17.

Regardless, those above items can be either situationally very useful or at least shiny (“oooooo killing those damn bugs with lasers...???!!! I’m all in”).

- nighttime power that doesn’t consume tons of coal
- more biter goo on the ground
- fancy drones flying around to do my bidding

... good reasons to attempt a fairly complex production chain.

But as stated before, I don’t really remember my thoughts back when I started playing. I’d really love to see metrics on all this stuff. I’d love to see early oil production builds other than my own. I look back and think “uhhhh hmmm...I don’t know that guy...he’s out of my will”.

Also, I’m only looking at screenshots since I started playing when many of the currently available items weren’t in the game. Back then, if you wanted better energy, you were thrilled to get to solar.

[bobucles]

That's not "kicking in the nuts", that's a reasonable decision that a player can make depending on what he currently needs more: energy or gas.
I

Yes, and that's exactly what the coal cracking buff does. The player makes the choice between taking the energy profit or taking the extra petrol by choosing to use the petrol or burn it as solid fuel. That choice does not currently exist because there is no way to be energy positive, even when the petrol is getting burned as fuel you lose. In order to give the player a choice they need to first HAVE the choice. Am I wrong?

In the current system there is 100% no reason to crack coal into energy. It's energy negative, after all. If there's no value to crack coal into energy, then there's no value in using the heavy or light oil byproducts for energy. You're wasting your time and better off using straight coal, obviously. So why crack coal in the first place? There is only one objectively correct answer to that: you intend to crack EVERYTHING it into petrol because there's no point in cracking coal for the other products. That's not a choice. If you don't use coal cracking in the only way it can be used, you lose. That's what it means to get kicked in the nuts.

[xfir01]

In the current system there is 100% no reason to crack coal into energy. It's energy negative, after all. If there's no value to crack coal into energy, then there's no value in using the heavy or light oil byproducts for energy. You're wasting your time and better off using straight coal, obviously. So why crack coal in the first place? There is only one objectively correct answer to that: you intend to crack EVERYTHING it into petrol because there's no point in cracking coal for the other products. That's not a choice. That's what it means to get kicked in the nuts.

I don't think it was ever intended to be used for energy generation. It was simply to allow an additional long-term coal sink along with plastic and explosives. There's also plenty of demand for solid fuel in rocket boosters regardless of the MJ value.

[Nova]

It's also a way to get more oil if you have only few oil fields near your base or if they are already depleted.

[Serenity]

Am I wrong?

Yes. About everything

[Koub]

That's not "kicking in the nuts", that's a reasonable decision that a player can make depending on what he currently needs more: energy or gas.
I

Yes, and that's exactly what the coal cracking buff does. The player makes the choice between taking the energy profit or taking the extra petrol by choosing to use the petrol or burn it as solid fuel. That choice does not currently exist because there is no way to be energy positive, even when the petrol is getting burned as fuel you lose. In order to give the player a choice they need to first HAVE the choice. Am I wrong?

In the current system there is 100% no reason to crack coal into energy. It's energy negative, after all. If there's no value to crack coal into energy, then there's no value in using the heavy or light oil byproducts for energy. You're wasting your time and better off using straight coal, obviously. So why crack coal in the first place? There is only one objectively correct answer to that: you intend to crack EVERYTHING it into petrol because there's no point in cracking coal for the other products. That's not a choice. If you don't use coal cracking in the only way it can be used, you lose. That's what it means to get kicked in the nuts.

I think coal liquefaction doesn't need buffing : either you need energy, and you better use your coal as is, or you need heavy/light/petroleum for purposes that aren't energy production, and coal liquefaction makes sense. If coal liquefaction was energy positive in addition to being able to provide you processed oils, there would be no point at all using coal for anything else than crafting.

[Oktokolo]

Coal liquefaction could be an early game thing to delay the need for expansion to the first oil patch if it would be available early enough and woukld work without the oil bootstrapping.

But in its current state i see no use case for it. I never used coal liqefaction in my multiple modded and unmodded bases. I need oil to start it anyway - so i just go full oil and eventually have solid fuel fed to plants and smelters. Coal is almost always the last resource that i need to expand for (after stone) in 0.16.

[TheRaph]

Coal liquefaction could be an early game thing to delay the need for expansion to the first oil patch if it would be available early enough and woukld work without the oil bootstrapping.

But in its current state i see no use case for it. I never used coal liqefaction in my multiple modded and unmodded bases. I need oil to start it anyway - so i just go full oil and eventually have solid fuel fed to plants and smelters. Coal is almost always the last resource that i need to expand for (after stone) in 0.16.

That I can not agree to.

Oil patches for me, are only for startup the oil based production. Oil pumps are slow and in my opinon the oil fields deplete to fast.
my entire oil processing is based on coal liquification. Coal isn't needed as much in late game, because of energy produced by nuclear or solar.

And in fact, processing coal to oil could never be energy positive... It's against physical laws (yes I know many things in factorio are a little bit against physical laws, but coal cracking being energy positive is a bit too mutch).

[Bauer]

Dear Wube-team!

Thanks for this great game. You are, by objective measures (richness of FFF, number of posts in the forum, modding support, etc.), very close to the communitiy. After reading this thread I feel obliged to appologize for some of the responses that come from the community. Some ppl here have an offensive and demotivating style that makes me feel ashamed. I still think that most people do NOT want to come across like assholes. I am also sure that 99% of the players appreciate your efforts of improving the game.

Cheers,
Bauer

[Tricorius]

Oil patches for me, are only for startup the oil based production. Oil pumps are slow and in my opinon the oil fields deplete to fast.
my entire oil processing is based on coal liquification. Coal isn't needed as much in late game, because of energy produced by nuclear or solar.

This is interesting to me. I’ve always just moduled and beaconed speed like crazy into oil patches that were running low. Nuclear and solar provide plenty of “free” energy to drive speed modules.

However, my coal lines do pretty much just sit there mid-base. It mostly goes into plastic (and some into military science, but that plateaus way before the research is done, even on death worlds). I often run into *way* more coal patches than I need in my hunt for metals. Might as well mine them up.

The question I have to figure out for 0.17 is whether the solid fuel to science matters enough to tip the balance there. I’m guessing it would. But even then, resources on the ground can,and probably should, be used (even if they aren’t energy positive, you still get a different result out of it in the end, and that’s a benefit).

[jphill4life]

I'm very excited about this update. Each FFF confirms that this update is going to be exceptional.

I like the rail change in the science packs. I never felt steel was used enough. I always way over produced steel but it stayed backed up nearly the entire game. I guess this was a good problem to have, but I always thought steel would be used in EVERYTHING, considering.. you know.. its steel. I also like the stone dump. I feel like there is now more of a reason to go get stone. Even laying refined concrete across the map on par with the size of Texas did not consume as much stone as I'd expect. Hopefully this science change helps with that.

I really like the solid fuel use. I personally love solid fuel for some reason, and I wish it was used in more things. I wish all of the oil had more uses. I really want there to be a point where I'm thinking -> "I really need more petroleum, but my light oil is going to this" or some other trade off. Right now, its just crack everything into petroleum. I guess that is fine, but it feels like there is definitely more headroom for oil to grow.

It is my sincerest hope that uranium makes a bigger contribution to science, or has another sink at some later date. I'd love for a fuel cell or some other uranium product to make it into something else. There just doesn't seem to be enough uses for my light green uranium.

Maybe im just a filthy casual, but you could literally toss anything into a science recipe and I'd be like.. yeah that's fair.

One note to improve though, make modules easier to upgrade! If there are lvl 1 mods in a building, and I have a higher leveled mod selected (or a different module) let me be able to rapidly replace a whole line. I literally thought this was a bug when it didn't let me do it.
--------------------------

A few friends and I plan to start a game and do everything from scratch, and this update is making that a prospect to look forward too.Keep up the good work!

[Pothrekr]

Hi,

I have been play testing the changes with a mod. While it may be minor I found that with the removal of the 2 inputs for a tier 1 assembler there is now a lack of progression for automating the Logistics Science Pack.

I honestly don't really care about the input restriction for assemblers, however I feel like there was progression with the old method where you had to research automation 2, to be able to automate Logistics Science Packs. Which I guess showed that not all assemblers are the same.

I don't think an arbitrary research unlock is the answer, but if each science pack automation is supposed to tie in a new part of the game I am unsure what this science pack builds on. It kind of feels like it's just there because we want another science pack.

It seems like it's required for me to say (So other cannot speak for me) that I am enjoying all the other changes and I feel like the increase in importance of stone is a godsend. Goodwork.

Regards
Poth