Friday Facts #416 - Fluids 2.0

[Panzerknacker]

I think the game design should be leading, not UPS optimization. Fine for those few people that push for that but what is the reason to go big if the game is boring? New CPU's will keep coming out anyway. They will come from China and they will be faster and cheaper than ever before.

[Automationist]

Any chance for a rework for electric energy?
Fluids now work like electrics (plus the pipe themselves are kind of mini-accumulators).

I always found the electric network to miss the electric resistance in the copper.
And that you can connect two networks with just one wooden pole which transfers all the electrons :/

So I guess the change to that electric system is even more unlikely now.
Would be too nice to have different levels of voltages (i.e. less resistance) depending on the type of pole you're using and a maximum throughput for different poles.

I agree. It was fun playing with complex fluid system and now it seems some of fun went away.
I excepted to make electricity a bit similar, as now you can power your several gigawatt factory over one small wooden pole. Factorio should use DC voltage and It should be doing basic load flow calculations.
Than display overloaded lines and voltage drops, as factories would run sub-otimal with lover voltages, which could always be corrected with stronger network or some building for its regulation.

[FuryoftheStars]

There's nothing you can do about the 4,8k flow being the max flow (pipe to pump to pipe) and if you wanted more flow, you just had to have more parallel pipes. This isn't a challenge, just repetitive actions. And also some jank was necessary too because you needed a pump after every pipe in your main line.

I'm curious, how is the fact that pipes can only transfer so much per second any different from belts? And really, should this not be expected? I mean, the pipes do have a finite diameter.

Yes, the rate of flow drop off probably occurred too quickly causing the "need" to use pumps so frequently. Though I think that's more a balance discussion?

- Belts do not require (or even have) pumps, as their throughput is (mostly) a constant.
- Their behavior is uniform; a straight line of belts performs exactly as well as a straight line of underground belts.
- Belts also do not require power (unlike pumps)

Lot of differences emerge specifically from pumps. Here is an example of what is required to do a tiny S-bend without losing any of the max throughput:



5 pumps at minimum, possibly 6 if you need to do it on the other side. (Or replace it with underground pipe, I rarely do because I just have the pump on hand anyway...)

Belts also do not merge with one another in unwanted ways (they can, just not like pumps). You can easily run 8 parallel belts in 8-width, but for 8 different pipes youd need 14-width.

Also, to be quite straight with you, I think these differences are painfully obvious...

And its not a balance discussion. Either the pumps are required or they aren't. If they are required, scaling them up does not actually remove the problem.

None of that actually answers my question, but the fact that pipes require pumps and power at all is what makes them a different puzzle to work on then belts. They do not need to be usable in the same fashion as belts, otherwise their's no difference in how you use them (almost as if pipes were a mere reskin of belts) and thus are not interesting as a new mechanic.

The fact that you need so many pumps to do an S bend or keep up the flow rate in a straight line, to me, is a balance discussion, because if they were to tweak their formulas so that drop off doesn't start for, say, 6 pipe segments, then you'd need 5 less pumps for the same run and can more easily use undergrounds to make that same section longer.

You also are choosing to be that rigid about needing 4.8k fluid to flow through a single pipe (which actually, the wiki says 6k?). You can choose to put less through each pipe and just use more than one pipe if needed. While two pipe segments and 2 pipe runs are equal to 1 & 1, going 3 & 3 or even 4 & 4 actually nets you more fluid/s then 1 & 1. You can then use tanks to combine multiple pipes and then do your 1 & 1 out of that once closer in the event that you actually need that 1 pipe only for some reason. But typically, it's your own design behavior that dictates this.

And you can do 8 pipes in 8 width, especially if you're going to do pump->pipe->pump by staggering them and using substations, or you can do 9 width with medium power poles. 10 width if you're going to use small.

[Sliverious]

Also, another quote from the FFF:

"However, during our playtesting of Space Age, it became clear that the existing system would no longer do the job. The production scaling afforded by the new machines and quality brought the flow algorithm to its knees."

What I can answer then, why don't you keep your "new machines" then. I assume you are referring to things like the foundry. In essence these "new machines" are nothing more than a assembling machine with a new graphic and different values for the crafting speed, stuff that might as well be modded in. I don't want more of that boring binary stuff if it means giving up one of the actual simulation mechanics in the game.

Or, putting it even better, the fluid system was actually the only reason those "new machines" could be interesting at all, due to the challenge of feeding them with enough fluids. That all becomes trivial now.


What about adding a "hard mode" to the game that will preserve the old fluid system? I also hope you will keep the Marathon difficulty in the expansion, maybe it could be part of that.

I haven't completed reading all replies here but I want to react to you even if others have already said what I want to say. I understand you dislike the changes (and if you look at my previous posts you'll see I don't like everything either) but at this point you are trying to prove your playstyle so hard you should simply not update to 2.0.

On topic:
I am interested to see the final version of this change. I never really liked the quirks of the current system for reasons others have already pointed out (inability to diagnose, abstraction/immersion breaking build-order dependencies, etc) but I tended to work something out regardless. It saddens me a bit to think most of those systems will break after this update due to them relying on the current quirks, although I do welcome a more understandable and predictable fluid system. I am reasonably proficient with the circuit network so I can control liquid flow somewhat, but friends of mine that did not take a minor course in circuit conditions never get their systems working, which is an important consideration for any feature. Mastery through additional mechanics is good, but the basics should get you somewhere as well.

[functional]

[...]

It's increasingly obvious to me that we have extremely different standards for what counts as a "puzzle" if you think placing an electronic pole in area that generally has no restrictions equates to a "puzzle" that you solve.

I think there's little else to discuss at this point. I've made it quite clear that this stuff is not a puzzle, it's just tedious and annoying.

[functional]

I don't believe you know better than the devs, but i respect your opinion.

The FFF calls the mechanic "unfun". Do you know better than the devs, in an area of knowledge that is specifically their expertise? (Gameplay design)

Alas, I'm done, as you hold so painfully obvious double standards.

[functional]

On topic:
I am interested to see the final version of this change. I never really liked the quirks of the current system for reasons others have already pointed out (inability to diagnose, abstraction/immersion breaking build-order dependencies, etc) but I tended to work something out regardless. It saddens me a bit to think most of those systems will break after this update due to them relying on the current quirks, although I do welcome a more understandable and predictable fluid system. I am reasonably proficient with the circuit network so I can control liquid flow somewhat, but friends of mine that did not take a minor course in circuit conditions never get their systems working, which is an important consideration for any feature. Mastery through additional mechanics is good, but the basics should get you somewhere as well.

Nothing should break in the new system compared to current one, except maybe circuits if the fluid amounts differ but they probably wont. Any fluid system you had in 1.1 should work in 2.0 with these proposed changes at least. Well, any that isnt input starved and somehow relies on the arbitrary filling in junctions in the 1.1, but you probably would never design like that intentionally.

What is different though is that lot of the old setups will have a ton of unnecessary pumps.

[FuryoftheStars]

[...]

It's increasingly obvious to me that we have extremely different standards for what counts as a "puzzle" if you think placing an electronic pole in area that generally has no restrictions equates to a "puzzle" that you solve.

I think there's little else to discuss at this point. I've made it quite clear that this stuff is not a puzzle, it's just tedious and annoying.

You're right, it is increasingly obvious that this isn't going to go anywhere because that is not what I said.

[mcdjfp]

I don't believe you know better than the devs, but i respect your opinion.

The FFF calls the mechanic "unfun". Do you know better than the devs, in an area of knowledge that is specifically their expertise? (Gameplay design)

Alas, I'm done, as you hold so painfully obvious double standards.

Since the developers cannot read my mind, I think I am a better judge at what I think is fun. The question the developers will have to answer (and I have seen many companies of all sizes fail horribly at answering this question), is whether they will gain more people from this move than they will lose.

[Panzerknacker]

I don't believe you know better than the devs, but i respect your opinion.

The FFF calls the mechanic "unfun". Do you know better than the devs, in an area of knowledge that is specifically their expertise? (Gameplay design)

Alas, I'm done, as you hold so painfully obvious double standards.

Since the developers cannot read my mind, I think I am a better judge at what I think is fun. The question the developers will have to answer (and I have seen many companies of all sizes fail horribly at answering this question), is whether they will gain more people from this move than they will lose.

That doesn't matter. They should be making the game THEY want to play, not other people. That's how real indie devs work, like ID Software back in the day. They made games that they liked themselves in the first place.

I just hope they didnt go way over budget with all the music related stuff etc, forcing them to mass-appeal (= dumb down) now.

[bobucles]

I'm surprised there's no mention of trying to run two pipes next to each other. Several mods have pipe variants simply for the purpose of splitting pipes apart, it's very handy for managing the huge spaghetti of dozens of fluids. Factorio may not need such a thing, thanks to the R key. Select a pipe, hit R, and it's now operating on a different network that won't connect to other pipes. Don't need more than 3 or 4 flavors to cover everything, even 2 flavors is powerful Or something like that.

[Sliverious]

Nothing should break in the new system compared to current one, except maybe circuits if the fluid amounts differ but they probably wont. Any fluid system you had in 1.1 should work in 2.0 with these proposed changes at least. Well, any that isnt input starved and somehow relies on the arbitrary filling in junctions in the 1.1, but you probably would never design like that intentionally.

What is different though is that lot of the old setups will have a ton of unnecessary pumps.

You don't know how janky my designs can be But you are probably right.

[mmmPI]

Alas, I'm done, as you hold so painfully obvious double standards.

Again I do respect your opinion, but i think it is a legitimate double standard to think the devs know more about the system they just introduced and how it compared to the old one than you or me.

Since the developers cannot read my mind, I think I am a better judge at what I think is fun. The question the developers will have to answer (and I have seen many companies of all sizes fail horribly at answering this question), is whether they will gain more people from this move than they will lose.

When it comes to fun, i agree it is indeed a subjective thing. Raiguard explaining the change, was/is in charge of Krastorio2 if i'm not wrong and did plenty of super mods i enjoyed, like fluid must flow to adress what some players didn't find fun like fluid mechanic ^^ ( which is a sign to me of a pretty good insight on what the "community" desire). I would have definitly prefered READING about something different, another mod from him added in the game, the rate calculator or something along those line, than the fluid mods.

But when i gather my thought, i have this image of a comedy show, and the public is of course knowing what they find fun, but only afterward, after they have heard the joke they can have informed opinion if it was fun or not. Otherwise they can only speculate on wether they want to go and see the show entitled "Fluid Rework" .

That sound like a terrible title to me, but the other show from the team were pretty cool and i haven't seen this one yet.

I do share the reasonning that lead you to redefining the questions, and in the later point, sadly i could totally imagine something that is not fun for me , but make them gain more players as it could very well be the case with that change.

I think the introduction of the FFF is not making me relate as much as maybe some other players do when it talks about how difficult it was to use fluid, because that was not my feeling to see it as a problem and not a source of fun.
But if many players were struggling to go past oil process, maybe it is a change than will be "liked" by them for this, and maybe it's more "the new puzzle to solve with those better tools" that will make me more excited. I hope because now i'm not thrilled by the change

[mcdjfp]

I don't believe you know better than the devs, but i respect your opinion.

The FFF calls the mechanic "unfun". Do you know better than the devs, in an area of knowledge that is specifically their expertise? (Gameplay design)

Alas, I'm done, as you hold so painfully obvious double standards.

Since the developers cannot read my mind, I think I am a better judge at what I think is fun. The question the developers will have to answer (and I have seen many companies of all sizes fail horribly at answering this question), is whether they will gain more people from this move than they will lose.

That doesn't matter. They should be making the game THEY want to play, not other people. That's how real indie devs work, like ID Software back in the day. They made games that they liked themselves in the first place.

I just hope they didnt go way over budget with all the music related stuff etc, forcing them to mass-appeal (= dumb down) now.

That is sort of what I am referring to. A small/indy developer with a similar idea of fun to mine puts out a game. Then at some point (usually with the sequel) they abandon that idea of fun because they have been convinced to go after some sort of (larger/or additional) target audience. That target audience never wanted to play that type game in the first place, and the original fans don't want to play the altered new game.

As for the fluids, to rate the options from my point of view,
1. New more realistic (or at least fun) system
2. Old system debugged.
3. No Change
4. Mod to fix things (rarely can be as efficient/integrated as something done by the developers)
5.
6. Proposed system (if there are improvements why weren't they given first, or at least at the same time)

[mmmPI]

1. New more realistic (or at least fun) system

That's what was the quote context originally was btw :

Neither new nor old system is very realistic for lots of reasons, and one can hardly say that one is realistic over other.

Here is a quote from the FFF :

The new system is a fairly large step back in terms of the "realism" of the fluid simulation in Factorio.

And? They're still wrong

I don't believe you know better than the devs, but i respect your opinion.

I am enclined to think that the system is indeed "less realistic" as the dev said and as you seem to think too as you mention preferring a "more realistic one".

[functional]

That target audience never wanted to play that type game in the first place, and the original fans don't want to play the altered new game.

Most veterans - including me - are for the change. So I'm sorry to say, but you're in the minority. I welcome you to check out Discord or, for example, the subreddit. Full of people who are rejoicing.

This whole narrative about how they're catering now to noobs or mass appeal or whatever (as if Factorio wasn't one of the most mainstream games there is...) is just absolute nonsense.

[mmmPI]

"most people rejoice now" is not really a good argument to disproove "they don't do that for mass appeal" x)

[Wildejackson]

I am so happy this idea had been implemented. I have for a very long time not understood why this implementation was not the way the fluid system worked to begin with, its both significantly easier to understand and is the most obvious and best way to go computationally speaking. There is an issue with prioritizing which would need to be implemented, as many builds require priority input. Instead of simply splitting the output evenly against all consumers connected, each consumer would get less further and the ones closer would get proportionally more. Probably using negative powers of two as a multiplier on the output rate, based on the input rate. This would have to be calculated for each consumer with every new input into the system, but I dont think its impractical.
A typical case of this would be one machine outputting say 6 fluid, with one (closer) consumer using 4 fluid ideally, and one (further) consumer which also needs 4 fluid but is there to consume excess. With the new system, that first consumer would get something like 3/4ths of the fluid and the further one would get 1/4th.
As the volume in the system increases to an equilibrium, the closer consumer is getting enough fluid, and the further one is partly starved, replicating the behavior of the old system without any overhead. This gets tricky with more consumers and more producers, the exact functions to determine the fluid distribution would need to be played around with but I think it would be worth the work.

[functional]

"most people rejoice now" is not really a good argument to disproove "they don't do that for mass appeal" x)

You haven't heard about proof of burden, have you? Right, not. Anyway, you're in the minority bud, these changes are happening.

[functional]

I have for a very long time not understood why this implementation was not the way the fluid system worked to begin with

Old system was "cooler" if you will. More elaborate and involved seemingly complex behavior due to being a system that tries to constantly seek equilibrium at a granular scope with inputs and outputs disturbing that equilibrium. In principle, that's very cool. Until you get to actually play around with it in any significant degree and the fun stops real quick.

I think it took this long to revert all that because everyone assumed a better solution will come about but now they probably accepted that no such solutions will ever likely come. At least none that wont destroy UPS entirely.