Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Regular reports on Factorio development.
bbgun06
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 59
Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 4:09 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by bbgun06 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:18 am

Linosaurus wrote:Engine units in pack 3 is an interesting change. Going to need a lot of assemblers for that!
Sounds fun! I think that it's also time to rebalance most of the recipes. When most items take .5 seconds to craft, there's not as many interesting design problems.

British_Petroleum
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 314
Joined: Tue Dec 23, 2014 7:21 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by British_Petroleum » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:27 am

How do the labs automatically develop technology?? Either there are people working inside, using the resources for experiments and prototyping, or there's a godly AI inside each lab, somehow constructed with a few basic circuit boards. Either way makes no sense.

And what happens to all the science pack resources? They just vanish... These copper plates and gear wheels have helped me discover laser turrets and now they will pop out of existence.

It would be much more realistic if technology came from space via trade. The most valuable thing to trade would be the alien artefacts, because they're unlikely to be found on other planets.

User avatar
aubergine18
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by aubergine18 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:36 am

British_Petroleum wrote:It would be much more realistic if technology came from space via trade. The most valuable thing to trade would be the alien artefacts, because they're unlikely to be found on other planets.
But the fatorian is all alone on the planet.

The way I see it is that the labs need equipment to perform experiments during research. But you're right - the fact that there's nobody in the labs, and early on there's no AI due to limited tech, it's weird that the labs are consuming these things.

IMO a better approach would be that doing certain types of task generates associated science points. So mining basic resources could generate red science points, smelting and refining could produce green, attacking biters could produce military, etc. Although problem with this approach is that it then becomes difficult for modders to add their own science tiers.
Better forum search for modders: Enclose your search term in quotes, eg. "font_color" or "custom-input" - it prevents the forum search from splitting on hypens and underscores, resulting in much more accurate results.

IronCartographer
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 345
Joined: Tue Jun 28, 2016 2:07 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by IronCartographer » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:43 am

Demongornot wrote:Hey, I'm new here (Already 117h in few weeks) , first off, thanks for this amazing game !
As a new player I see a feature that could be nice for the science tree :

I was conducting some sandbox test to check/learn some behaviour of inserter and their stack upgrade...
But then, I spend more time looking at which research actually unlock the science pack I needed (3 and alien in this case) than researching all inserter stack upgrades/bonus :cry:

Showing the related research that unlock the science pack that this object require would be nice for those who don't know yet what those research who unlock those science pack are named or look like.
It will be even more important if science is changed cause even veterans players might spend long time to memorise which research is needed for a science pack for an item.
And even if we don't see the full tree of the science pack that is needed for the object we want to research, just the science pack research itself would be helpful.
I'm on 0.13 so I don't know if anything about this have changed on 0.14.
If things that required (for example) tier 3 science packs automatically had tier 3 crafting research as a prerequisite, this would be a non-issue.

Rseding91
Factorio Staff
Factorio Staff
Posts: 9967
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2014 5:23 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by Rseding91 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:46 am

British_Petroleum wrote:How do the labs automatically develop technology?? Either there are people working inside, using the resources for experiments and prototyping, or there's a godly AI inside each lab, somehow constructed with a few basic circuit boards. Either way makes no sense.

And what happens to all the science pack resources? They just vanish... These copper plates and gear wheels have helped me discover laser turrets and now they will pop out of existence.

It would be much more realistic if technology came from space via trade. The most valuable thing to trade would be the alien artefacts, because they're unlikely to be found on other planets.
It's a game. It's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be fun :P
If you want to get ahold of me I'm almost always on Discord.

Yokhen
Manual Inserter
Manual Inserter
Posts: 2
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:10 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by Yokhen » Sat Oct 08, 2016 1:51 am

Rseding91 wrote:
British_Petroleum wrote:How do the labs automatically develop technology?? Either there are people working inside, using the resources for experiments and prototyping, or there's a godly AI inside each lab, somehow constructed with a few basic circuit boards. Either way makes no sense.

And what happens to all the science pack resources? They just vanish... These copper plates and gear wheels have helped me discover laser turrets and now they will pop out of existence.

It would be much more realistic if technology came from space via trade. The most valuable thing to trade would be the alien artefacts, because they're unlikely to be found on other planets.
It's a game. It's not meant to be realistic. It's meant to be fun :P
Yeah, I think the dude might be confusing "functional" with "realistic"

Mendel
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 248
Joined: Mon Aug 17, 2015 1:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by Mendel » Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:24 am

British_Petroleum wrote: And what happens to all the science pack resources? They just vanish... These copper plates and gear wheels have helped me discover laser turrets and now they will pop out of existence.
I think it would make sense if the science packs would turn into energy. So maybe labs should give out small amount of electric energy as a side product of "burning" the science packs. This would also allow for some initial research without electric network provided that you hand craft the science packs.

DOSorDIE
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 240
Joined: Sat Oct 11, 2014 3:43 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by DOSorDIE » Sat Oct 08, 2016 2:35 am

Devs ... dont forget the Arty!
Need some Long Range Killer Device ... but will need much Ammo, because when it further then its not so precise.
Best are like the flametowers that you can choose the side who it shall be fire.

Or that it is possible to make it as mod.

Zeno
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by Zeno » Sat Oct 08, 2016 3:56 am

Science pack rework is certainly a good idea, the additional packages will help motivate any discoveries of new science layouts.

However considering the resources required for the military science pack compared to tech and production, it's insanely cheap even within the "test" example given. Also there are a few resources that are not used, that some military resources might have a requirement for, and given a PvP possibility, not as balanced for the strategic choices a player's team might make.

A short list:
- "Standard" ammunition (rarely used) - Currently there's no reason to use or produce this or any of its cousins (shotgun shells, rockets) as it's effectively completely out performed by Piercing Rounds magazines. I suggest any "improved" ammo require the prior ammunition version in its assembly as well. (if it makes sense to) This would also balance PvP by making sure no one just skips directly into "the best" ammo types, and lets teams cripple their enemy for a moment by destroying the lower production tiers to disable the higher tiers. It also increases the base cost of the military research pack, which even in the "test" example given, is hilariously cheap compared to production and high-technology.
- Lack of Wood USES (wood piles) - Stuffed full in crates because i can't bear to let even a few items go, this stuff needs to be used somehwere, so it's not just eating up space. Should military research packs require the production of weapons in order to be made, stockpiles of wood will have a use, the players will be prompted to cut down nearby forests and expand outwards, resulting in more biter or hostile player encounters, more conflict, more need for military, and so on. There would be a reason to build a robot network out into the woods; so you could harvest lumber faster for your weapon factories, for your military science factories. And again, increasing the base cost of military science. [edit - "wood fights" in real-time strategy games was a great mechanic that always worked to establish conflict and battle-lines.]

and

Concerns on PvP and balance:
- Weapon physics - No one is going to build walls if they don't stop bullets and you can't hide behind them (well, maybe to stop vehicles) Grenades and all area-effect weapons are massively powerful due to minimal damage fall-off towards the edge, and the blast is absolutely not stopped by anything. The lock-on-gun-aiming makes things all too easy, as well (though i'm sure it helps save the network from dying)
- Health/Armor/Shields... vs Turrets - I can see the gameplay being likely towards this: 1. Land grab, 2. turret turtle, 3. tech-up, and then 4. smash the enemy "turret trench" with tanks, or with modular shielded armors. Factorio combat is definitely very much a "He who has the biggest numbers shall win" at the moment. The only break from this is rocket launchers' massive range, which could be the only genuine "rock paper scissors" bit it has at the moment. (SMGs beat shotguns beat rockets beat turrets beats everything else) [Edit - And of course the tank is an even better example. Players could probably die dozens of times before the tank falls, and that's without repair packs... Without vehicle limits you could expect to see endless tank swarms that'd rival (Open) Red Alert...]
- PvP Options - There needs to be LOTS of options. Just for selecting team colors, you could say only the game master gets to choose, or the team leaders get to choose, or the team members get to choose as a "vote" for their team color, or someone's color choice in the team is randomly chosen as the team color. Then the game could make sure no one is picking a "sneaky" color that matches the minimap too closely, unless the GM has allowed the OPTION to have minimap-matching colors.

- "Dead" Teams - OPTIONS! Options options options. Radio button options. Check box options. Options that can be voted on in the pre-game lobby. Players get booted from the server. Players become ghost spectators. Players don't die and become hold-outs. Players join their killers' side. Players join remaining teams by even distribution. Players join the lowest-scoring remaining team, where score is determined by OPTIONS OPTIONS OPTIONS ... Players join the biter faction and attract biter hordes to marshal into enemy defenses ...
Last edited by Zeno on Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Drury
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by Drury » Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:08 am

Zeno wrote:- "Dead" Teams - OPTIONS! Options options options. Radio button options. Check box options. Options that can be voted on in the pre-game lobby. Players get booted from the server. Players become ghost spectators. Players don't die and become hold-outs. Players join their killers' side. Players join remaining teams by even distribution. Players join the lowest-scoring remaining team, where score is determined by OPTIONS OPTIONS OPTIONS ... Players join the biter faction and attract biter hordes to marshal into enemy defenses ...
I'd prefer giving options to the modders rather than the players... Many an RTS is ruined by the ability to have NORUSH INFINITE CASH NO SUPERWEAPON games which flood the serverlist.
Image

Zeno
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 10
Joined: Fri Aug 12, 2016 11:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by Zeno » Sat Oct 08, 2016 4:19 am

Drury wrote:I'd prefer giving options to the modders rather than the players... Many an RTS is ruined by the ability to have NORUSH INFINITE CASH NO SUPERWEAPON games which flood the serverlist.
Many first person shooters and other games have been ruined by players finding the "best" map and then clinging to it. (de_dust... big game hunter... "hacked cash" "ai stomp" maps...)
In any case, i only provided such a rediculous list of examples as a demonstration of what should be accounted for, not what should actually be done.

I'd just be happy if there was a way to make sure the GM's team doesn't pick "Forest Green" and then force your team to use "Hot Pink" and promptly get your team blown out when you can't see them in the forests.

User avatar
Drury
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 699
Joined: Tue Mar 25, 2014 8:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by Drury » Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:04 am

Zeno wrote:I'd just be happy if there was a way to make sure the GM's team doesn't pick "Forest Green" and then force your team to use "Hot Pink" and promptly get your team blown out when you can't see them in the forests.
So many ways around that.

If they end up going for just 2 teams (which they really, really should), then it's not really an issue, have red vs. blue, classic. Alternatively, have like 6 colors to choose from, all of which would stand out both from everything in the game and also from each other. RGB sliders would probably be more trouble than worth.
Image

Rhamphoryncus
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Jul 14, 2015 10:57 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by Rhamphoryncus » Sat Oct 08, 2016 5:14 am

madpav3l wrote:
Marconos wrote:
voyta wrote:
Marconos wrote:Another thought on this, as I'm sure not everyone agrees with me (though they are WRONG :D ) is to have the science factor be governed by a game setting. Allowing masochist to make the game take more science if they desire it.
Marathon mod.
I don't like the marathon mod. I don't want everything in the game changed, just the science. I know it's easy enough to have in a mod, but I'm one of those weird people that play with few to no mods and those few that I do/have used in the past don't change gameplay, colored trains mod for example.
Then there is this mod ScienceCostTweaker Mod https://mods.factorio.com/mods/UberWaff ... ostTweaker
You can tweak it however you like in the configs.
There's also https://mods.factorio.com/mods/Taehl/BetterScience , which is *very* similar to what this FFF proposes. :D

User avatar
aubergine18
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by aubergine18 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:29 am

DOSorDIE wrote:Devs ... dont forget the Arty!
Need some Long Range Killer Device ... but will need much Ammo, because when it further then its not so precise.
Best are like the flametowers that you can choose the side who it shall be fire.

Or that it is possible to make it as mod.
> Or that it is possible to make it as mod.

> make it as mod.

> mod.

Try this: https://mods.factorio.com/mods/sore68/Additional-Turret
Better forum search for modders: Enclose your search term in quotes, eg. "font_color" or "custom-input" - it prevents the forum search from splitting on hypens and underscores, resulting in much more accurate results.

User avatar
aubergine18
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1264
Joined: Fri Jul 22, 2016 8:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by aubergine18 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 6:33 am

IMO science pack progression should follow same color coding as belt progression. Yellow -> Red -> Blue ....

This way there is consistent color progression throughout the game. Yellow most basic, Red better than yellow, etc...
Better forum search for modders: Enclose your search term in quotes, eg. "font_color" or "custom-input" - it prevents the forum search from splitting on hypens and underscores, resulting in much more accurate results.

EvilMushroom
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by EvilMushroom » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:12 am

kane.nexus wrote:...minimize research griefing...
I always felt this could be easily fixed by making research progress persistent, so when you switch back to researching an old technology, it retains any progress already made. Seems kind of silly that this is not the default behavior.

EvilMushroom
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 8:40 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by EvilMushroom » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:25 am

British_Petroleum wrote:How do the labs automatically develop technology?? Either there are people working inside, using the resources for experiments and prototyping, or there's a godly AI inside each lab, somehow constructed with a few basic circuit boards. Either way makes no sense.
The primary scientific knowledge database was destroyed in the crash, so you had to fall back on a much smaller database that compressed all information by only storing an AI and enough data to perform the experiments needed to derive the remaining scientific knowledge. Many of the experiments destroy the materials used to conduct the experiment, and the AI consumes specialized materials as well. Each level of AI and Experimentation requires a progressively more complicated set of materials to maintain.

dstar4138
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Mon Sep 05, 2016 11:00 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by dstar4138 » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:42 am

Oh! Love the PvP scenario work! Looking forward to restructuring for the new research levels!

Personally I'd love an MMO scenario where all players crash land in remote starting points and have to build their own bases to survive (only eventually being able to pool resources together). Players would have to be distant enough that they shouldn't be able to walk to one another in any reasonable timeframe, or the biters are near toxic jungle levels. So think Co-Op but only mid/late-game. I bring it up here because the biggest blocker I saw was the need for distinct research tracks (i.e. each player had their own research progress). But this PvP approach sounds like that would be needed.

HammerPiano
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 228
Joined: Thu Dec 31, 2015 7:36 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by HammerPiano » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:46 am

This paragraph is brought to you by Klonan.
This sentence sounds like it was sponsored :D
The liquid wagon looks awesome!!!
When 0.15 is scheduled to be released?

Antaios
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:18 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #159 - Research revolution

Post by Antaios » Sat Oct 08, 2016 7:53 am

Drury wrote:If you want an actual competition, don't go for more than 2 teams. Anything more is too chaotic for any strategic or tactical depth, plus it makes the players more hopeful that they can win when the chances are roughly 50%, and as a result more engaged. Plus you'll have 0 issues with players from defeated teams; the game ends when one team gets defeated.
As long as there's still options for more than two teams in non-competition pvp... 2 teams sounds so boring to me, I'd welcome the chaos.


I also think definitely don't make the maps symmetrical, keep them randomly generated (probably with starting areas). It would force confrontations between teams for resources, and result in more interesting games. Rather than everyone being on equal footing, two teams might have control over some oil, but another might be near the only large iron deposit for miles. Sure, not every game will be fair - but every game will have it's twists.

Another example might be a game with 4 teams, one team got an awesome starting spot, two got kinda ripped off, and one is average. The two teams in bad positions might team up on the team that has the awesome position - so much dynamic emergent play to be had.

Again, at least keep the option around for more casual play.

Post Reply

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users