Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Regular reports on Factorio development.
User avatar
Nova
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:13 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Nova »

I don't like the idea of adding new things (ores, ...) for everything. It can be simplified if that means not having to deal with over 40 kinds or ores. That's one thing I don't like about minecraft mod packs.
Greetings, Nova.
Factorio is one of the greatest games I ever played, with one of the best developers I ever heard of. Image

kovarex
Factorio Staff
Factorio Staff
Posts: 7431
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2013 12:00 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by kovarex »

Nova wrote:I don't like the idea of adding new things (ores, ...) for everything. It can be simplified if that means not having to deal with over 40 kinds or ores. That's one thing I don't like about minecraft mod packs.
Exactly, adding lot of different ores with specific usage is something I also don't like. But adding 1 more could still be fine. Although .. I prefer to save that one for the uranium.

User avatar
Nova
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 943
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:13 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Nova »

Yeah, 1 (or even 3 or 4) more would be fully okay, but if you start to add an ore for every new thing, you will end at 40 or more. Nice to see that you think the same about that.
Greetings, Nova.
Factorio is one of the greatest games I ever played, with one of the best developers I ever heard of. Image

Metonymia
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 12:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Metonymia »

kovarex wrote:
Nova wrote:I don't like the idea of adding new things (ores, ...) for everything. It can be simplified if that means not having to deal with over 40 kinds or ores. That's one thing I don't like about minecraft mod packs.
Exactly, adding lot of different ores with specific usage is something I also don't like. But adding 1 more could still be fine. Although .. I prefer to save that one for the uranium.
You make a fair point, yet I don't think specifically Iron Ore should be used for the production of concrete. Unless... well, maybe Steel, but not for concrete floors...

Ojelle
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:21 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Ojelle »

Metonymia wrote:
kovarex wrote:
Nova wrote:I don't like the idea of adding new things (ores, ...) for everything. It can be simplified if that means not having to deal with over 40 kinds or ores. That's one thing I don't like about minecraft mod packs.
Exactly, adding lot of different ores with specific usage is something I also don't like. But adding 1 more could still be fine. Although .. I prefer to save that one for the uranium.
You make a fair point, yet I don't think specifically Iron Ore should be used for the production of concrete. Unless... well, maybe Steel, but not for concrete floors...
Even in floors you can put a lot of iron, saying as an engineering student in constructions :)
Choumiko wrote:
sillyfly wrote:kovarex just posted the thread... but with #118 in the title. I think they had too much beer :D
It's a wonder how good the game is, if you consider how bad they are with the FFF numbers :mrgreen:

User avatar
MeduSalem
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by MeduSalem »

Ojelle wrote:
Metonymia wrote:You make a fair point, yet I don't think specifically Iron Ore should be used for the production of concrete. Unless... well, maybe Steel, but not for concrete floors...
Even in floors you can put a lot of iron, saying as an engineering student in constructions :)
Firstly it's Steel and you should know then that reinforced concrete is only used in applications where the low tensile strength and ductility of concrete has to be counteracted by using Steel or other materials offering higher tensile strength. It is only needed for a floor if it is a ceiling to another room below, but not neccessarily for concrete tiles ending up in the backyard of your garden. There it would be quite a waste of money because steel is quite expensive compared to concrete.

Metonymia
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 14
Joined: Sat May 16, 2015 12:00 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Metonymia »

MeduSalem wrote: Firstly it's Steel and you should know then that reinforced concrete is only used in applications where the low tensile strength and ductility of concrete has to be counteracted by using Steel or other materials offering higher tensile strength. It is only needed for a floor if it is a ceiling to another room below, but not neccessarily for concrete tiles ending up in the backyard of your garden. There it would be quite a waste of money because steel is quite expensive compared to concrete.
That's exactly what I meant. Anyhow, the point is still: Iron Ore is not used in the creation of concrete. What about shoveling sand?

Ojelle
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 143
Joined: Thu Feb 12, 2015 9:21 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Ojelle »

MeduSalem wrote:
Ojelle wrote:
Metonymia wrote:You make a fair point, yet I don't think specifically Iron Ore should be used for the production of concrete. Unless... well, maybe Steel, but not for concrete floors...
Even in floors you can put a lot of iron, saying as an engineering student in constructions :)
Firstly it's Steel and you should know then that reinforced concrete is only used in applications where the low tensile strength and ductility of concrete has to be counteracted by using Steel or other materials offering higher tensile strength. It is only needed for a floor if it is a ceiling to another room below, but not neccessarily for concrete tiles ending up in the backyard of your garden. There it would be quite a waste of money because steel is quite expensive compared to concrete.
Okay, I know indeed very well its steel, secondly, if you put a lot of those machines on it, drive over it, lay trains in the vincinity, you will need a lot more then just gardening tiles to keep everything in place. Just try to think about it that way, after all, it will be a simplification, one way or the other. (I dont care how its done, as long as it is in a way connected to reality and fits in the game ). And tbh, I tought about steel, not the raw ore when typing that. Didnt read the quoted one that toroughly. After all I'm still a student ;)
Choumiko wrote:
sillyfly wrote:kovarex just posted the thread... but with #118 in the title. I think they had too much beer :D
It's a wonder how good the game is, if you consider how bad they are with the FFF numbers :mrgreen:

User avatar
SHiRKiT
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 698
Joined: Mon Jul 14, 2014 11:52 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by SHiRKiT »

Perfect update and news. I love you guys! Greatest game ever!

User avatar
ssilk
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 11001
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by ssilk »

Peter34 wrote:
ssilk wrote:this is the "cleanest" method you can do (game-play-wise): Pollute and the surrounding is cleaned from trees. :D
The problem with manual Tree removal is early game. You keep forgetting the 4th dimension, Ssilk!
To make it clear: That was a joke. ;)

But I like this thought: Make big pollution to get rid of trees with the danger to awake the biters too early. Let's play a while around with this thought...
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...

lancar
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 158
Joined: Tue Dec 02, 2014 5:49 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by lancar »

I'm thinking 2 or 3 more ores added into the game would be fine. To avoid clogging the overworld they could be part of the underground layer, and require specialized sensors & drills to detect and mine them.

Peter34
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1092
Joined: Mon Nov 10, 2014 12:44 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Peter34 »

lancar wrote:I'm thinking 2 or 3 more ores added into the game would be fine. To avoid clogging the overworld they could be part of the underground layer, and require specialized sensors & drills to detect and mine them.
But when should those added ores become relevant?

Early game?

Mid game?

Late game?

Very late game?

Roadworks seems to have its Limestone ore become relevant mid game, as an example.

User avatar
ssilk
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 11001
Joined: Tue Apr 16, 2013 10:35 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by ssilk »

Hrm...
Let's repeat what Kovarex said:
Exactly, adding lot of different ores with specific usage is something I also don't like. But adding 1 more could still be fine. Although .. I prefer to save that one for the uranium.
I know his posts now good enough to say, this means:
- There is only a very, very little chance to have more than one more ores.
- That one will be Uranium.

He doesn't say:
- There are no more resources (more fluids)
- For what all kinds of stuff Uranium might be used.
Cool suggestion: Eatable MOUSE-pointers.
Have you used the Advanced Search today?
Need help, question? FAQ - Wiki - Forum help
I still like small signatures...

User avatar
Cordylus
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 215
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2014 11:28 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Cordylus »

It's not so optimistic.
Uranium would be used only for the nuclear reactors and maybe uranium coated shells. A-bombs would be very bad idea.

The aluminum would allow so many new materials and items. For example aluminum it's an obvious metal for the rockets, space constructions and aviation.

Ailure
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 12
Joined: Sat Apr 11, 2015 3:30 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Ailure »

I kinda like the idea of adding more machines for variety, but maybe it's worth to consider if the assembly machine just changes skin when you change recipes instead? It already sort of does that for any fluid involved receipts.

I don't mind more specialized ores or rare resources, but not in the form of surfaces ores. I think this would work better if it was something put in a more abstract manner, like a building that extracts them from the underground or something. That said, don't think I would mind bauxite as a new surface ore. ;)

Koub
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5489
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Koub »

I would vote :
- Sand for early (glass), mid (concrete, ...), and end game(silicium, ...),
- Aluminium for mid and end game (Aluminium is one of the most used metals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), it's light, has natural anti-corrosion features, and is really abundant, though mostly in bauxite and other oxydes form.
- Uranium for end-game (energy production, high density metal, ...)
Koub - Please consider English is not my native language.

Dweesil
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun May 17, 2015 9:46 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by Dweesil »

Will we be able to grow those pretty trees?

FrozenOne
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 177
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 8:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by FrozenOne »

Koub wrote:I would vote :
- Sand for early (glass), mid (concrete, ...), and end game(silicium, ...),
- Aluminium for mid and end game (Aluminium is one of the most used metals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), it's light, has natural anti-corrosion features, and is really abundant, though mostly in bauxite and other oxydes form.
- Uranium for end-game (energy production, high density metal, ...)
I agree. Since these resources have different lifecycles (i dont like that iron and copper are processed exactly the same way) they might be quite interesting to get and offer challenging choices.

Sand from deserts, so every game start would make different gameplay depending whether you spawn on desert or far from any (it should be possible to live without sand, but easier with it - better material for possible far trip to desert).

Aluminium because it is not made in furnaces but by spending lots of electricity - so better material at high coal cost.

And uranium of course, totally different to process, no bulkfeeding to furnaces, easy electricity but danger from radiation.

User avatar
MeduSalem
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1381
Joined: Sun Jun 08, 2014 8:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by MeduSalem »

FrozenOne wrote:
Koub wrote:I would vote :
- Sand for early (glass), mid (concrete, ...), and end game(silicium, ...),
- Aluminium for mid and end game (Aluminium is one of the most used metals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), it's light, has natural anti-corrosion features, and is really abundant, though mostly in bauxite and other oxydes form.
- Uranium for end-game (energy production, high density metal, ...)
I agree. Since these resources have different lifecycles (i dont like that iron and copper are processed exactly the same way) they might be quite interesting to get and offer challenging choices.

Sand from deserts, so every game start would make different gameplay depending whether you spawn on desert or far from any (it should be possible to live without sand, but easier with it - better material for possible far trip to desert).

Aluminium because it is not made in furnaces but by spending lots of electricity - so better material at high coal cost.

And uranium of course, totally different to process, no bulkfeeding to furnaces, easy electricity but danger from radiation.
Exactly. That's what I would vote too.

Those 3 should be among the next/last resources added to the game. Those 3 have valid purposes and there is no need for more than those three. Sand, Aluminium and Uranium still offer quite a lot of different purposes and different processing methods. Everything else (rare ores like titanium and crap like that) is perfectly legit with mods for those interested in tons of various resources.

And it would be adviseable to add all three in one major update so people don't have to start over once again at a later development stage. Even if there's no tech tree around those 3 resources yet they should be added in one step because technology can be added with any update, but starting new maps is an entirely different thing.

Even it is not my place to tell what's the best... I would pretty much say that there should be a poll, a special discussion or something about that topic anytime soon to find out which resources/ores people would be interested in, for which ones there's a legit demand/purpose and then vote which ones to add because they are going to be final resources added to the game for a very, very, very long time, if there's ever going to be more then them at all.

dee-
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 405
Joined: Mon Jan 19, 2015 9:21 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #86 - Trees

Post by dee- »

MeduSalem wrote:
FrozenOne wrote:
Koub wrote:I would vote :
- Sand for early (glass), mid (concrete, ...), and end game(silicium, ...),
- Aluminium for mid and end game (Aluminium is one of the most used metals http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aluminium), it's light, has natural anti-corrosion features, and is really abundant, though mostly in bauxite and other oxydes form.
- Uranium for end-game (energy production, high density metal, ...)
I agree. Since these resources have different lifecycles (i dont like that iron and copper are processed exactly the same way) they might be quite interesting to get and offer challenging choices.

Sand from deserts, so every game start would make different gameplay depending whether you spawn on desert or far from any (it should be possible to live without sand, but easier with it - better material for possible far trip to desert).

Aluminium because it is not made in furnaces but by spending lots of electricity - so better material at high coal cost.

And uranium of course, totally different to process, no bulkfeeding to furnaces, easy electricity but danger from radiation.
Exactly. That's what I would vote too.

Those 3 should be among the next/last resources added to the game. Those 3 have valid purposes and there is no need for more than those three. Sand, Aluminium and Uranium still offer quite a lot of different purposes and different processing methods. Everything else (rare ores like titanium and crap like that) is perfectly legit with mods for those interested in tons of various resources.

And it would be adviseable to add all three in one major update so people don't have to start over once again at a later development stage. Even if there's no tech tree around those 3 resources yet they should be added in one step because technology can be added with any update, but starting new maps is an entirely different thing.

Even it is not my place to tell what's the best... I would pretty much say that there should be a poll, a special discussion or something about that topic anytime soon to find out which resources/ores people would be interested in, for which ones there's a legit demand/purpose and then vote which ones to add because they are going to be final resources added to the game for a very, very, very long time, if there's ever going to be more then them at all.
Sounds reasonable to me.

+1

Post Reply

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users