Friday Facts #378 - Trains on another level

[FuryoftheStars]

1. Let's take a look at some of the games that give you DLC content for free, shall we?

Space Engineers.
Mechwarrior 5 Mercenaries
[From another post: No Man's Sky]

Other games have different situations. But sure, let's look at those.

Space Engineers: $20 game with 12x $5 DLCs ($80 total)
Mechwarrior 5 Mercenaries: $30 game with 6 DLCs, most between $15-$20 ($120 total)
No Man's Sky: $60 game

Factorio: $35 game with soon to have $30-35 DLC ($65-$70 total)

And I want to point out something important here: according to the devs, the DLC was planned to have just as much content as the base game. This means their DLC should, in theory, double the content of the game. And, as has been mentioned already, we will be getting many engine and UI improvements for free, too.

Oh, and according to this very FFF post, you MUST HAVE the DLC in order to add the elevated rails to your game by enabling the mod. The mod WILL NOT WORK without the DLC, so you cannot actually enable them without buying the DLC.

Well, yes. They made the DLC and then decided to split it into subcomponents so that you can enable and disable the pieces you want on any given playthrough. If anything, an arguement could be made to not sell these as a bundled pack like they are and instead separate them out as their own $5 DLC packages. I imagine many people would not buy Quality if they did. But it's their choice to do it like this, and they certainly shouldn't be obligated to release the elevated rails for free just because other games do.
(Of course, if they did this, I can totaly see the cries about how Factorio is going down the road of many other games (like SE) where they're just nickle and diming their player base with DLC. Can't win.)

Again, each game and its surrounding circumtances are different, and just because some games can afford to do this kind of stuff doesn't mean it makes sense for all.

2. It is not a puzzle game. It is a construction logistics and tycoon game. By your logic, any and all automation games (Factorio, Satisfactory, Captain of Industry, etcetera) must also be puzzle games.

It's not a puzzle game in the same vein as say (to pull out an ancient title because I really don't know what there are for modern games like this) Dr Brain, absolutely not. But there are definitely logistic challenges to be solved like puzzles. Advanced Oil and its 3 fluids (which apparently was too difficult for so many people the devs decided to remove it from Basic), Kovarex process, belt spaghetti, belt balancing, train signaling and interesections, beacon setups, etc are all forms of puzzles to solve. You don't have to solve some of these in the sense of gating progression, and there are multiple ways to solve each of them, but they're still puzzles.

I suppose if you feel as though you can do all of it in your sleep, then I can understand how you don't see the puzzles. But that doesn't mean they're not there.

-----------------------------

Looking at the "island crossing" example more closely. There is a radar powered by accumulators, but there don't seem to be anything refilling the accumulators.

When setting up something for the purposes of screenshots, why does it have to be perfect?

I was just thinking maybe they're hinting at a new mechanic.

Ah, my apologies, then. I read it as if you were trying to point out a mistake in the setup. Could be they just threw that down real quick to make the area visible for a map view screenshot, but I'm not sure, as the only way of placing those that would make sense would be via /editor, but then they could've taken the screenshot from there, so.... *shrug*

-----------------------------

2B: As in real life, loose materials are those like coal, iron ore, gears, screws...

You misunderstand. Internally, ore is no different from locomotives (as items). There is no concept of size or weight, so how do you differentiate?

Same way as you can differentiate items that require an energy source (like an assembler, a furnace or a locomotive) from items that doesn't (like a belt, a pipe or a box): a developer assign some property for each prototype.
I like Bulk Rail Loader mod by therax.

Ok, sure, they could do that. Now they need to manually assign this property for everything in the game and DLC that qualifies. But for what gain? What value does this bring?

Again, I'm not against the idea, but a bulk unloader (and/or loader) is superior to inserter setups in every way. It would completely supplant what we have now for these types of items and trivialize the unloading (and/or) loading process. There is no trade off.

Maybe if it was much more limited in use scope? Like ore only? I mean, honestly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be unloading circuits or even plates like this anyway. Circuits would be too easily broken and plates would be dented and bent (hard to feed those through a machine).

(Of course, if all of this was controlled by a property, the first mod I can see coming out would be setting all items to being able to use this, but that's digressing.)

-----------------------------

Stick this in the backlog if you run out of things to do before release. But I agree with some others that more ramp options would be very valuable. Although I don't think that just adding more directions (like 45deg) is the best option.

I'd love to see ramps with a 90deg turn. But you would need one with a left turn and one with a right turn, and each of those would need to be rotated in 4 orientations. But it would be really useful.

Also nice would be an "s turn" ramp that is almost like the straight ramp but jogs left or right on the way up or down.

I think the problem, and extra work involved with this, is because everything in this game are sprites, then for each ramp orientation they'd need to create more sprites for locomotives, wagons, and artillery.

[danbopes]

I concur with some of the others, when they mentioned that trains should slow down when going up a ramp. Going uphills can certainly impact speed, and I'd imagine it should translate here as well.

[Losash]

I concur with some of the others, when they mentioned that trains should slow down when going up a ramp. Going uphills can certainly impact speed, and I'd imagine it should translate here as well.

Factorio is not about realism. There was a reply by developer in this thread on earlier pages.
Megabase with 400+ trains which have to calculate dragging angular force of all thousands of carts in real time lagging because "you would like realism" is not an option.

[FuryoftheStars]

I concur with some of the others, when they mentioned that trains should slow down when going up a ramp. Going uphills can certainly impact speed, and I'd imagine it should translate here as well.

Factorio is not about realism. There was a reply by developer in this thread on earlier pages.
Megabase with 400+ trains which have to calculate dragging angular force of all thousands of carts in real time lagging because "you would like realism" is not an option.

Page 9

I am wondering if the train physics now account for the elevation change? Do trains roll down ramps driven by gravity? Do they have reversing locks? Is there a difference in manual/automatic mode?

No, i decided it would not be fun mechanic and it would have its own performance impact for all trains running in all cases since i would have to scan entire train if each rolling stock is on a slope to compute some additional forces acting on a train, so i just skipped it. There are also some internal assumptions like a train on automatic must never go backward (it can only consume its path to destination, never revert) so if a train would go out of fuel and would start moving backward the game would have to handle that case as well. I am ok with performance impact if something is fun to play but Factorio is not about realizm, its about fun and this would not be fun.

[Abarel]

Ok, sure, they could do that. Now they need to manually assign this property for everything in the game and DLC that qualifies. But for what gain? What value does this bring?

Fun, lots of fun!
I like to use it specially with Pyanodon's loose materials that stack on high amounts, some organics (Moss, Seaweed, Ralesias), ores (several ores and oxides, besides vanilla ones) and general stuff (ash, clay, gravel, landfill)...

Again, I'm not against the idea, but a bulk unloader (and/or loader) is superior to inserter setups in every way. It would completely supplant what we have now for these types of items and trivialize the unloading (and/or) loading process. There is no trade off.

Not in every way: it cannot handle any prototype, just loose items (ores and a few other). It is a specialized way to handle certain type of items.

Maybe if it was much more limited in use scope? Like ore only? I mean, honestly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be unloading circuits or even plates like this anyway. Circuits would be too easily broken and plates would be dented and bent (hard to feed those through a machine).
(Of course, if all of this was controlled by a property, the first mod I can see coming out would be setting all items to being able to use this, but that's digressing.)

Well, the mod I linked in my previous post propose to limit the items allowed to use with bulk loaders (and inludes settings for a bunch of popular mods), but yes, it also allows to change that and even to allow every item type if the player wants.

[Saphira123456]

1. Let's take a look at some of the games that give you DLC content for free, shall we?

Space Engineers.
Mechwarrior 5 Mercenaries
[From another post: No Man's Sky]

Other games have different situations. But sure, let's look at those.

Space Engineers: $20 game with 12x $5 DLCs ($80 total)
Mechwarrior 5 Mercenaries: $30 game with 6 DLCs, most between $15-$20 ($120 total)
No Man's Sky: $60 game

Factorio: $35 game with soon to have $30-35 DLC ($65-$70 total)

And I want to point out something important here: according to the devs, the DLC was planned to have just as much content as the base game. This means their DLC should, in theory, double the content of the game. And, as has been mentioned already, we will be getting many engine and UI improvements for free, too.

Oh, and according to this very FFF post, you MUST HAVE the DLC in order to add the elevated rails to your game by enabling the mod. The mod WILL NOT WORK without the DLC, so you cannot actually enable them without buying the DLC.

Well, yes. They made the DLC and then decided to split it into subcomponents so that you can enable and disable the pieces you want on any given playthrough. If anything, an arguement could be made to not sell these as a bundled pack like they are and instead separate them out as their own $5 DLC packages. I imagine many people would not buy Quality if they did. But it's their choice to do it like this, and they certainly shouldn't be obligated to release the elevated rails for free just because other games do.
(Of course, if they did this, I can totaly see the cries about how Factorio is going down the road of many other games (like SE) where they're just nickle and diming their player base with DLC. Can't win.)

Again, each game and its surrounding circumtances are different, and just because some games can afford to do this kind of stuff doesn't mean it makes sense for all.

2. It is not a puzzle game. It is a construction logistics and tycoon game. By your logic, any and all automation games (Factorio, Satisfactory, Captain of Industry, etcetera) must also be puzzle games.

It's not a puzzle game in the same vein as say (to pull out an ancient title because I really don't know what there are for modern games like this) Dr Brain, absolutely not. But there are definitely logistic challenges to be solved like puzzles. Advanced Oil and its 3 fluids (which apparently was too difficult for so many people the devs decided to remove it from Basic), Kovarex process, belt spaghetti, belt balancing, train signaling and interesections, beacon setups, etc are all forms of puzzles to solve. You don't have to solve some of these in the sense of gating progression, and there are multiple ways to solve each of them, but they're still puzzles.

I suppose if you feel as though you can do all of it in your sleep, then I can understand how you don't see the puzzles. But that doesn't mean they're not there.

2B: As in real life, loose materials are those like coal, iron ore, gears, screws...

You misunderstand. Internally, ore is no different from locomotives (as items). There is no concept of size or weight, so how do you differentiate?

Same way as you can differentiate items that require an energy source (like an assembler, a furnace or a locomotive) from items that doesn't (like a belt, a pipe or a box): a developer assign some property for each prototype.
I like Bulk Rail Loader mod by therax.

Ok, sure, they could do that. Now they need to manually assign this property for everything in the game and DLC that qualifies. But for what gain? What value does this bring?

Again, I'm not against the idea, but a bulk unloader (and/or loader) is superior to inserter setups in every way. It would completely supplant what we have now for these types of items and trivialize the unloading (and/or) loading process. There is no trade off.

Maybe if it was much more limited in use scope? Like ore only? I mean, honestly, it doesn't make a lot of sense to me to be unloading circuits or even plates like this anyway. Circuits would be too easily broken and plates would be dented and bent (hard to feed those through a machine).

(Of course, if all of this was controlled by a property, the first mod I can see coming out would be setting all items to being able to use this, but that's digressing.)

1. Fair point, but it disregards my point, which is that all the items that are added to the base game separated out and added to the base game, while cosmetic items get added to the DLC. In Factorio, anything that would be useful on planets gets thrown into the base game, but space stuff gets added to the DLC since the DLC adds a space mode.

2. I can in fact do these things in my sleep, most of them anyway. Some of them like the Kovarex process are as simple as adding a sorter, while others such as spaghetti and signalling are either a non-issue (there's an entire planet to build on, and spaghetti is delicious) or simply a matter of memorization (inputs vs. outputs.) Because of this, the puzzle aspect simply isn't there for me.

3. The mod Abarel suggested adds a building that is bloody-freaking HUGE, with enough space for no less than FOUR input conveyors plus space for a couple of connected chests in the corners, so just finding the space for the dang thing in a tightly-packed factory is a problem. Additionally, that mod is only useful for ores as it is, though you can enable iron plates and other things in the mod.

[ClulessNoob]

This is awesome news and they look fantastic!

If I may, however, would it be possible to get an image of this this view panned to the east a bit? I'm fascinated by loader/unloader setups and the one there to the right doesn't look like one I've already seen!

[iamgod77]

Sorry for contributing to the off-topic troll spam here, but I could not resist: People moaning about this being a dlc and should be free and on the other hand about this not being a puzzle game: What a shame...

People talking about dlc are completely wrong and I understand why. This is an expansion, as they were intended back when games were good, before 2010 in general (but for a few exceptions like CDPR). The concept of DLC has been exploited and corrupted to a point using the concept is synonym of corruption and predator business models. We should not use "DLC" at all for this game imho, despite it's literally "Downloadable content". EA, Firaxis, Activision, Ubi and a lot of other crap publishers are spamming the industry with them. And as an expansion, this feels worth it, and we just don't know not even 5% or 10% of what's coming, can't understand people doubting at all about this instance. You perhaps are talking about free DLCs in the few games that do have them. It's not comparable at all but anyway. In this 2 years + we are gonna have a lot more in a package that any maintenance for free any other game may offer.

This game is a puzzle game. You are a lot of times in the need to solve puzzles, in the traditional concept of puzzle I mean. When you wanna fit new stuff in a gap in your already crowded factory, or with kovarex, or when you wanna design a new balancer by yourself, or when you wanna program something within the game. But also it's said by developers themselves it's a puzzle game, an also any publication out there and/or the Wikipedia, among any other source you could think off. Are you gonna argue against the definition developers themselves are giving to you? That's silly.

[Feather]

Splitting the DLC into multiple packages is just so brilliant, I actually stopped playing rimworld because they just lumped everything together into one big package

[mmmPI]

2. I can in fact do these things in my sleep, most of them anyway. Some of them like the Kovarex process are as simple as adding a sorter, while others such as spaghetti and signalling are either a non-issue (there's an entire planet to build on, and spaghetti is delicious) or simply a matter of memorization (inputs vs. outputs.) Because of this, the puzzle aspect simply isn't there for me.

I think i understand better your playstyle now, and sorry to insist but sometimes i get a little obsessed about proper wordings, and i thought maybe there's a one word that wasn't mentionned in the discussion and that maybe is more suited to your playstyle : "sandbox" ?

Because puzzle in real life are not super hard either, but they have typically have 1 and only 1 solution whereas in Factorio you can more or like decide to draw whatever you want spaghetti-style (i like that too).

When you say signals are matter of memorization, that's because i suppose you are not using just a set of a few defined blueprint that you stamp all around and instead do custom junctions most of the time. ( one way feels more "puzzle" the other "sandbox").

If you think of the Kovarex process as just adding a sorter that's not the same as someone who spend hours trying to make a 32x32 tileable design to use as a blueprint to stamp later, ( that can apply to rail junctions too for some players ) because for such person (me sometimes) then it can feel like a small puzzle when trying to fit centrifuge and beacons and belts and splitters in a square design. And then this "solved" puzzle becomes a piece for another puzzle ,where you try and fit the blueprint on a( infinite) map,(sandbox) or a ribbon world (puzzle).

For such playstyle the additions of bridges and curves and half diagonals feels very very good, because the "small puzzle" of trying to fit the existing "pieces" to make a blueprint gets many many more possibilities which in turns opens up other possibilities for the larger "puzzle". That's what's exciting me so much. And really that's what i should try to talk about instead of arguing about wordings.

In many of my previous game the "larger puzzle" of trying to make a train network that does have congestion, i felt design choices had a limitation due to some inability to scale / copy paste some designs. As illustrated on the FFF the Loading/Unloading areas could see ,before bridges, the incoming trains blocking temporarily the outgoing trains, this is fine for a few stations sharing input/output, but too many and the throughput suffers a lot.

Whereas with bridges, my playstyle will be giving myself some self-imposed puzzle condition, to try and make a compact junction that allows incoming trains to go ABOVE the outgoing trains, or the opposite. I may spend hours doings that x) I already did. This with in mind the idea that it will give me options to choose from in the "larger puzzle" of doing the train network. Because now, stacking many stations inline is a possibility the input/output can be on 2 different layer (the video whose caption is :" Specifically in arrays of train stops, having the exit and entrance on different levels is a game changer. ")

I don't know of better word than "puzzle" to describe how i feel about those, that's why i use it a lot and insisted on it (maybe too much), but i would be glad to learn more proper word, where it's like a challenge in a limited 2D space, where you have pieces that you stamp on the ground and the result is a (functionnal) image.

I can understand the word "puzzle" feels far-fetched or not fit when looking at the last video or the one on the island, where the grid isn't felt, and the pieces are merging so well that it's possible not to see them as "pieces on a grid" but rather smooth lines breaking even more this "puzzle" aspect.

TL DR :
I think now i see the new rails additions as having several distinct positives points instead of just an overwhelming sensation that's it's great.
For me a puzzle with more pieces, and more solutions to the big puzzle, but also less of a puzzle and more freedom in the sandbox.

Edit: Factorio is such a great game i think because it has the great mix in "puzzle" "sandbox" "survival" "automation" "tower-defense" "strategy" "construction" "tycoon" and what nots, with the necessary constraint/freedom given to players to have enjoyable time playing. It has "elements" of those genre. And everyone saying the new tracks are like rollercoaster tycoon, to me are just saying a very positive thing about factorio ).

[maxfrolikov]

Finally! Spaghetti Rails!

[Tertius]

I think now i see the new rails additions as having several distinct positives points instead of just an overwhelming sensation that's it's great.
For me a puzzle with more pieces, and more solutions to the big puzzle, but also less of a puzzle and more freedom in the sandbox.

In my opinion, it's much simpler. The elevated rails are not just convenience or "because it's the most requested item by players". They are genuinely improving gameplay for people aiming at bigger factories. Not for people who just want to start one rocket, but for bases beyond that. And that's the value of it.

I realized this myself, when congestion started to appear for my train setup, and I realized nothing would make this going away except less crossings.

For my setup, after optimizations and some disentanglement, even less crossings were not possible. There are 2 ways left to get less crossings: bridges/tunnels or a less dense base in the first place. Since there are no bridges/tunnels in 1.1, the only thing to bring congestion down is to distribute the production areas over a larger area. Which is what I wanted to avoid in the first place: I envisioned centralized high density production lines, so it's most material and distance efficient.
I started active traffic control with circuits, tedious and frustrating work. Successful, but not sufficient.
I can add more locomotives and make trains smaller to get better acceleration, so trains stopping at a crossing is not that bad, but this is making everything less efficient.

So I started looking for the most efficient crossing setups in a desperate attempt to overcome the issue. And that's where I started to look for foreign blueprints on the internet for a major part of the game instead of creating all setups and blueprints myself. And that's where I felt for the first time there is a flaw in the game, a missing functionality. There are other missing things, for example the ability to read a single wagon content, but that's not a flaw, all those other things can be worked around one way or the other.

So I really welcome that 2nd rail layer. If it only were not a full year ahead.

[mmmPI]

In my opinion, it's much simpler.

I fully agree on your analysis, although i'm not sure it's much simpler to conclude that bridges help tremendously for concentrating production at the map scale. I went through pretty much the same trajectory as the process of dis-entanglement you mentionned and reached the same conclusions about crossings. ( also i tried to reduce traffic to reduce congestions by increasing density of shipped good, smelting ore, to plate or steel on spot and shipping the dense material ).

There was others points in the discussions that weren't obvious to me such as : elevated trains do not risk killing players

It was also mentionned something that i understood as : for grid-like network, the ability to not create junctions at every intersection but instead 1/2 or 1/3 or 1/4 and so on and using double bridges instead, allows for any sized block with manageable amount of overall crossing on the map which was the main grief i had against those as it can tank performance at large scale.

[Tallinu]

Additionally, as this is a radical game-alteration, not having it be vanilla feels like they are essentially forcing you to buy the DLC to make the planetside game easier on yourself, enabling you to avoid at least some types of junctions and all the signaling and other things involved, as mentioned in their OP.

Well, yeah. They just put months of work into this new system. They shouldn't be expected to give it up for free into the main game. And as they said, they did this in part because they expect factories to grow even larger and for the player to be away at other planets... thus unable to see or deal with any issues that arise. They wanted to give additional tools to help alleviate this.

2. Actually, they should. Other games have put months of work into their DLCs and have given this stuff away for free by making it an addition to the main game. So time spent is no excuse, using that will just cause players to shift games.

Can we please NOT encourage subscription / lootbox / cash shop / "you're only allowed to sell cosmetics" / etc income models, and just pay a fair price up-front, unbegrudgingly, for sets of outstanding features that take years (not months) of expensive development time to implement? Please?

Besides, "radical" is a bit hyperbolic. Everyone has managed just fine without elevated rails before. It's not like you can't make complicated and/or efficient interchanges without them. (I SHOULD KNOW. I spent a lot of time, a while back, developing (see sig. link) some of the biggest and most complicated interchanges to push the limits of train throughput, well beyond most typical, practical use cases.) Claiming this is suddenly a "haves and have-nots" situation where the have-nots are at an "unfair disadvantage" due to not getting content they chose not to pay for is disingenuous and frankly ridiculous.

[Anachrony]

I see a lot of people excited, but I honestly don't get it. So what? Trains that are elevated? So I can build a base under them? Why? My screen is already busy enough in a large base, what's the point? Why would I want this?

Building a base under them is one side benefit, but not the main purpose. I take it you don't use trains that much? That's fine, but it's understandable you wouldn't be excited for train features if you don't use them. If you do use trains extensively, then I think you'd be familiar with intersections and how much of a bottleneck they can be for congestion. A vertical layer allows train lines to cross over one another without traffic along either line needing to slow down and stop for the other. Trains can get pretty fast, but take a while to accelerate up to full speed, so intersections really bog things down. The intersections that these ramps will enable will make dense train bases far faster and more efficient than is currently possible.

This is a bit like underground pipes or belts. Imagine trying to build without those? We've been building without underground trains all this time. Finally having them will be a game changer. It's not a perfect analogy, since trains can merge onto shared lines more cleanly than sushi belts, but not having a way to cross rails without stopping traffic has been a major constraint in what can be done with them.

[Saphira123456]

2. I can in fact do these things in my sleep, most of them anyway. Some of them like the Kovarex process are as simple as adding a sorter, while others such as spaghetti and signalling are either a non-issue (there's an entire planet to build on, and spaghetti is delicious) or simply a matter of memorization (inputs vs. outputs.) Because of this, the puzzle aspect simply isn't there for me.

I think i understand better your playstyle now, and sorry to insist but sometimes i get a little obsessed about proper wordings, and i thought maybe there's a one word that wasn't mentionned in the discussion and that maybe is more suited to your playstyle : "sandbox" ?

Because puzzle in real life are not super hard either, but they have typically have 1 and only 1 solution whereas in Factorio you can more or like decide to draw whatever you want spaghetti-style (i like that too).

When you say signals are matter of memorization, that's because i suppose you are not using just a set of a few defined blueprint that you stamp all around and instead do custom junctions most of the time. ( one way feels more "puzzle" the other "sandbox").

If you think of the Kovarex process as just adding a sorter that's not the same as someone who spend hours trying to make a 32x32 tileable design to use as a blueprint to stamp later, ( that can apply to rail junctions too for some players ) because for such person (me sometimes) then it can feel like a small puzzle when trying to fit centrifuge and beacons and belts and splitters in a square design. And then this "solved" puzzle becomes a piece for another puzzle ,where you try and fit the blueprint on a( infinite) map,(sandbox) or a ribbon world (puzzle).

For such playstyle the additions of bridges and curves and half diagonals feels very very good, because the "small puzzle" of trying to fit the existing "pieces" to make a blueprint gets many many more possibilities which in turns opens up other possibilities for the larger "puzzle". That's what's exciting me so much. And really that's what i should try to talk about instead of arguing about wordings.

In many of my previous game the "larger puzzle" of trying to make a train network that does have congestion, i felt design choices had a limitation due to some inability to scale / copy paste some designs. As illustrated on the FFF the Loading/Unloading areas could see ,before bridges, the incoming trains blocking temporarily the outgoing trains, this is fine for a few stations sharing input/output, but too many and the throughput suffers a lot.

Whereas with bridges, my playstyle will be giving myself some self-imposed puzzle condition, to try and make a compact junction that allows incoming trains to go ABOVE the outgoing trains, or the opposite. I may spend hours doings that x) I already did. This with in mind the idea that it will give me options to choose from in the "larger puzzle" of doing the train network. Because now, stacking many stations inline is a possibility the input/output can be on 2 different layer (the video whose caption is :" Specifically in arrays of train stops, having the exit and entrance on different levels is a game changer. ")

I don't know of better word than "puzzle" to describe how i feel about those, that's why i use it a lot and insisted on it (maybe too much), but i would be glad to learn more proper word, where it's like a challenge in a limited 2D space, where you have pieces that you stamp on the ground and the result is a (functionnal) image.

I can understand the word "puzzle" feels far-fetched or not fit when looking at the last video or the one on the island, where the grid isn't felt, and the pieces are merging so well that it's possible not to see them as "pieces on a grid" but rather smooth lines breaking even more this "puzzle" aspect.

TL DR :
I think now i see the new rails additions as having several distinct positives points instead of just an overwhelming sensation that's it's great.
For me a puzzle with more pieces, and more solutions to the big puzzle, but also less of a puzzle and more freedom in the sandbox.

Edit: Factorio is such a great game i think because it has the great mix in "puzzle" "sandbox" "survival" "automation" "tower-defense" "strategy" "construction" "tycoon" and what nots, with the necessary constraint/freedom given to players to have enjoyable time playing. It has "elements" of those genre. And everyone saying the new tracks are like rollercoaster tycoon, to me are just saying a very positive thing about factorio ).

You're right in one aspect, and that is that all of my stuff is spaghettified and custom.

When it comes to trains? Stuff's so spread out anyway that I don't really need crossovers and junctions. I use independent rail lines bringing things like oil products back to my main hub, which I usually construct in the same area where I land, or in another area that has lots of copper, iron and coal.

Occasionally I'll build a train that brings cargo from my hub out to a distant point, but when I have to do that I usually just stack on another car and use the train that's already going out there.

For the most part my trains are bidirectional, independent, custom-built lines that serve one specific type of industry and ship all the finished products back to my hub. I never use blueprints, I do everything custom, and I am a proud FSM - a Factorio Spaghetti Monster, because Factorio is simplicity itself.

A two-year-old could play it to completion, and never be frustrated. Even with the mods I have installed like Space Exploration, which don't really make it more difficult, just more of a slog.

[solidzaku]

I'm going to have a gluten overdose because of all the spaghetti this is going to facilitate. Great addition.

[Saphira123456]

Sorry for contributing to the off-topic troll spam here

Let me stop you right there.

1. I'm not trolling at all. I'm going to be purchasing the DLC myself, so it's not off-topic, not trolling, and not spam.

2. I'm not suggesting this expansion should be 100% free. I'm simply saying that SOME of it should be free. Stick the Quality-of-Life stuff that's relevant to the already-existing content (elevated rails, recycler, etcetera) in the base game and put the outer space stuff and other new mechanics (other planets, space platform, starship, rocket types, product quality) into the paid section.
I mean, it's not like all of this stuff isn't already available as mods anyway. What's stopping people that want recycling and different train stuff from downloading the mods and not even bothering with the DLC? All they're doing is bringing mods into vanilla with a few different models, and charging for things that are already free, with the exception of Space Exploration which is going to be dumbed down for the paid expansion as the expansion is directed at casual players. So we're not even going to be getting the full SE experience, but instead a dumbed-down version. (Which is still cool, by the way. SE's biggest challenge is overcoming the sheer tedium. I look forward to it being dumbed down so that I don't fall asleep at my desk playing it.)

3. This game is not a puzzle game, despite what the developers say, and never was. As mmmPI said, "puzzle" is just something the developers tagged the game with because "automation" didn't attract people's eyes. It has no puzzle elements and never did.

[Anachrony]

I disagree. I play other games like this, especially Satisfactory, and there really isn't any puzzle to it, nor any challenge in any game like it. The biggest challenge is keeping your eyes open and finding ways to pass the time while your factory stockpiles research materials and components, agonizingly slowly. If you have biters turned on, then that's one solution but it still doesn't change the fact that this game has no real puzzle or challenge to it.

Once you get your initial setup of copper, iron and coal set up, you're all set. At that point, Factorio pretty much becomes an idle game.

It sounds like you hate every aspect of Factorio gameplay, so why the hell are you begging for free DLC for a game you don't even like? It also sounds like you don't even understand how to play it. Your factory doesn't build itself unless you've downloaded someone else's blueprints and negated the whole game for yourself. Which some people do for some inexplicable reason, but it's not much different from playing games with cheat codes. You have only yourself to blame if you spoil your own game.

Why are your experiences with other factory games relevant? Satisfactory notably differs from Factorio in its 3rd dimension, which does indeed strip away any puzzle elements of trying to fit things together. With the 3rd dimension you can trivially fit anything with anything, so there is indeed no puzzle aspect. When constrained to just 2 dimensions it's not so easy to get things from where they are to where they need to be. There are light puzzle elements to designing a complex build in Factorio, more than in Satisfactory.

If your Factory is taking a long time to stockpile stuff, you built it to small, and you should be scaling it instead of idling. Effective scaling introduces some new challenges over a tiny factory that just automates the bare minimum of each thing. It's a logistics game, and you don't need to worry about efficient logistics if you're content to just have a slow factory and wait for it.

[mmmPI]

3. This game is not a puzzle game, despite what the developers say, and never was. As mmmPI said, "puzzle" is just something the developers tagged the game with because "automation" didn't attract people's eyes. It has no puzzle elements and never did.

I never said that, the game is a puzzle game, and has always been due to it having lots of puzzle element that's what i said. I suggested maybe you don't understand what if refered to by "puzzle game" which i think you further confirm. I am not the one who mentionned the dev tagging the game with "puzzle". I said that Factorio defined the genre "automation" and as such the term couldn't be used initially to describe factorio because it wouldn't have brought anything to people's mind. Whereas now it's the reference.

You sound like trolling