Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Regular reports on Factorio development.
PacifyerGrey
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1046
Joined: Wed Jun 29, 2016 10:02 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by PacifyerGrey »

V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am
The "there are too many things on petroleum gas" point is really dangerous to change - if for example we would put sulfur into heavy oil, it could very easily happen that your refinery would deadlock because you only want to produce batteries/acid, say for mining uranium and laser turrets. Even with AOP and proper automated cracking system, the only solution would be to store your petroleum gas/light oil products somewhere - introducing the same problem as BOP used to have, without a possible proper solution. This can happen right now, too, in a case when you would want to produce a lot/only lubricant, or a lot/only rocket fuel. However both of those cases are quite unlikely and generally don't happen too often, or for too long period of time, as the amount of petroleum gas is pretty much always high.

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, I probably missed/lost some things among the off-topic etc.
I have suggested before that with BOP being HO + PG, Sulfur being initially on HO. AOP would add Sulfur from LO and PG liquification making LO from PG.
This would solve all possible deadlocks letting you convert all products to both LO (meaning Sulfur, Rocket fuel), and to PG for plastic.
This would make everything quite consistent while still adding something to solve at the BOP stage.

cbhj1
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 142
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by cbhj1 »

V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am
The "there are too many things on petroleum gas" point is really dangerous to change - if for example we would put sulfur into heavy oil, it could very easily happen that your refinery would deadlock because you only want to produce batteries/acid, say for mining uranium and laser turrets. Even with AOP and proper automated cracking system, the only solution would be to store your petroleum gas/light oil products somewhere - introducing the same problem as BOP used to have, without a possible proper solution. This can happen right now, too, in a case when you would want to produce a lot/only lubricant, or a lot/only rocket fuel. However both of those cases are quite unlikely and generally don't happen too often, or for too long period of time, as the amount of petroleum gas is pretty much always high.
How is it dangerous to change, when the deadlocks mentioned would have been the same previously?

lacika2000
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:25 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by lacika2000 »

V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am
lacika2000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:51 am
TLDR; keep all outputs in BOP, but change the behavior of the refinery to not stop when backed up on one or two of the streams but internally consume these, and only produce what it can output. AOP would only introduce cracking, not changing the refinery oil product ratios.
But that's completely inconsistent with anything in Factorio - items never disappear (with some exceptions, and when things are consumed like in labs/ammo/fuel).

I don't really see how does it improve anything other than being more confusing.

...

I'm sorry if I'm missing something, I probably missed/lost some things among the off-topic etc.
First, thank you for picking this up, appreciated!

Second, if I understood correctly the current changes, the current BOP does exactly what you claim not to happen in Factorio - namely that things disappear. The current recipe takes 100 oil but produces less than 100 PG, right?

What I am proposing is very similar in fact, but with a bit more flexibility. Let’s assume we have the BOP ratios at 40/30/30 for HO/LO/PG. When the player connects only the PG outlet of the refinery (and it is not blocked), the refinery will produce 30 PG from 100 oil. If the player then connects also the LO outlet (and it is not blocked), the refinery will produce 30 LO next to the 30 PG it is already producing (assuming the PG is not blocked). Finally, if the player also connects the HO (and it is not blocked either), the refinery will produce all three products. At any given time when any of the three outlets are blocked, the refinery will stop producing the blocked stream, while keep making the other stream(s). This is what it does now in BOP, with only PG allowed by Wube (it only produces PG, pretending that the others are blocked).

In other words, I am proposing to use the OR logic {HO || LO || PG} instead of the current AND logic {HO && LO && PG} for refining in the BOP stage. You can still mandate the AND logic for AOP if you want, this is a game design choice for you (Wube) to make.

Most importantly: your current BOP is in fact already doing what I propose with the added limitation that you have blocked LO and HO by default. What I am asking is to remove the outlet limitation on BOP, so that the player can connect all three streams if they choose to, but when they connect any of the streams they are not to be limited with the AND logic on the products. This would help to deal with the different streams as the player see it fit and has the capacity to deal with, and avoid any “interruptions” in production with the backlogs.

With AOP you can then increase the yield to the current level and, as a trade off, also introduce the AND logic on the outputs, with the cracking tech to deal with the codependency of the production. If you want, you can increase the difference between the total yield of BOP and AOP to give a better incentive to the player to upgrade eventually.

This approach gives a choice to the player: BOP means easy flexibility but lower yield, AOP gives “advanced” flexibility (with cracking needed to avoid blocking) but higher yields.

It also gives you the game design choice to move con bots before blue science, so that you don’t have to invent a low tech bot solution... :D

So what do you think? ;)

User avatar
Deadlock989
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 2384
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:41 pm

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Deadlock989 »

cbhj1 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:58 pm
V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am
The "there are too many things on petroleum gas" point is really dangerous to change - if for example we would put sulfur into heavy oil, it could very easily happen that your refinery would deadlock because you only want to produce batteries/acid, say for mining uranium and laser turrets. Even with AOP and proper automated cracking system, the only solution would be to store your petroleum gas/light oil products somewhere - introducing the same problem as BOP used to have, without a possible proper solution. This can happen right now, too, in a case when you would want to produce a lot/only lubricant, or a lot/only rocket fuel. However both of those cases are quite unlikely and generally don't happen too often, or for too long period of time, as the amount of petroleum gas is pretty much always high.
How is it dangerous to change, when the deadlocks mentioned would have been the same previously?
Because they don't want the game to have any deadlocks at all any more. They don't want the player to have any production problems to solve, to ever face having an excess of a product that needs dealing with somehow, unless it is strictly voluntary. Because some unknown fraction of new players don't like it or don't understand it or can't be bothered with it or all three. They just want the oil production flow to be linear A>B on demand. Switch it on when you want it, switch it off when you don't.
"If Stalin had a good writeup on programming, would linking that be dangerous?"

Preserteo
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 21
Joined: Tue Nov 13, 2018 11:11 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Preserteo »

Deadlock989 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:18 pm
cbhj1 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 12:58 pm
V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am
The "there are too many things on petroleum gas" point is really dangerous to change - if for example we would put sulfur into heavy oil, it could very easily happen that your refinery would deadlock because you only want to produce batteries/acid, say for mining uranium and laser turrets. Even with AOP and proper automated cracking system, the only solution would be to store your petroleum gas/light oil products somewhere - introducing the same problem as BOP used to have, without a possible proper solution. This can happen right now, too, in a case when you would want to produce a lot/only lubricant, or a lot/only rocket fuel. However both of those cases are quite unlikely and generally don't happen too often, or for too long period of time, as the amount of petroleum gas is pretty much always high.
How is it dangerous to change, when the deadlocks mentioned would have been the same previously?
Because they don't want the game to have any deadlocks at all any more. They don't want the player to have any production problems to solve, to ever face having an excess of a product that needs dealing with somehow, unless it is strictly voluntary. Because some unknown fraction of new players don't like it or don't understand it or can't be bothered with it or all three. They just want the oil production flow to be linear A>B on demand. Switch it on when you want it, switch it off when you don't.
But if the incentive of Factorio is to solve the production problems!!!

That put the necessary elements to launch the rocket fall from the sky and thus we save all existing production problems.

Adamo
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 476
Joined: Sat May 24, 2014 7:00 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Adamo »

Deadlock989 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:18 pm
Because they don't want the game to have any deadlocks at all any more. They don't want the player to have any production problems to solve, to ever face having an excess of a product that needs dealing with somehow, unless it is strictly voluntary. Because some unknown fraction of new players don't like it or don't understand it or can't be bothered with it or all three. They just want the oil production flow to be linear A>B on demand. Switch it on when you want it, switch it off when you don't.
It's hard to solve production problems on a PS4 controller. But, hey, I do love your new refinery pipe.

User avatar
Deadlock989
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 2384
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:41 pm

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Deadlock989 »

Adamo wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:49 pm
It's hard to solve production problems on a PS4 controller. But, hey, I do love your new refinery pipe.
It's the future.

Image
"If Stalin had a good writeup on programming, would linking that be dangerous?"

gorothdablade
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 23
Joined: Thu Mar 21, 2019 12:51 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by gorothdablade »

lacika2000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:00 pm
So what do you think? ;)
An addition I would add, is that excess production isn't just lost... its burned off.

This could be represented with a smoke stack for each HO, LO, and PG. The smoke stack only lights up when that specific fuel line is backed up for a visual cue to the player, and possibly even generate more pollution as a "penalty" of sorts for not properly using the production. This penalty is not as steep as a complete deadlock, but still noticeable (unless you are on some peaceful variety).

This way the production doesn't just vanish (not very factorio), it is converted into a form that we don't want until you balance the factory (adding a new problem to solve). The player is also alerted to the fact there is a problem with out a deadlock occurring (if the devs are feeling generous they could even have an alert pop up).

mcdjfp
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by mcdjfp »

V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am
I've read somewhere above the "you make BOP have built-in flare stacks but hate the flare stack solution". Obviously the key difference is that AOP has no flare stack available, and the puzzle has to be solved.
1. You missed half of the flare stack comment. The new Basic Oil Processing IS a flare stack that can be used through the entire game. It PERMANENTLY unlinks petroleum gas from light and heavy oil. Regardless of what you say, the puzzle is simpler than it was before. Now instead of always having to balance the three outputs, now only two of the outputs are linked together. Once you have enough light and heavy oil for what you are doing, there is no need for advanced oil processing. Just throw down refineries set to basic oil processing (with the destruction of the light and heavy oil built into the recipe) and there is all the petroleum gas you need without any concern for the other two outputs. What is more of a puzzle (when you need more petroleum gas)? Placing twice as many refineries set to basic oil processing with 1 in and 1 out. Or having to take the heavy oil to a chemical plant to crack it to light, then take that light plus what is coming out of the refinery to another set of crackers to get to get petroleum gas that you were looking for. Remember base layout is a part of the game's puzzle as well, and that aspect, plus some of the resource balancing aspect are simplified by the new recipe.

2. Enough puzzles have been simplified (even if some were fairly minor) recently, that "the puzzle" does not work as an explanation anymore for you to justify or argue against changes. It really doesn't work when you say we won't do this in order to justify doing just that. You say flare stacks (resource destruction) do not fit with Factorio when defending changing a recipe that does just that. It destroys the light and heavy oil when you don't want them (sounds like a flare stack to me).

3. There is a MUCH bigger problem to solve than basic oil processing. You have split the player base into 3 groups. Those that like the direction the game is going with all of the simplifications, those that like complexity (and thus don't like puzzle after puzzle being simplified), and those that don't care. One of these groups is feeling more and more pushed aside. What do you think that the result of that will be?

Instead of forcing everyone to play the same way, give us options. (Some people like more expensive research seeing it as a challenge, others don't like it as it feels like a grind. Since there is a setting for this, both are happy.

4. Mods are not the solution either. Some of the recent simplifications have negatively impacted mods as well such as the mining hardness change.

5. One last question. If the linked outputs are really the issue, will delaying that really help? I have seen the "they will figure it out given some more time," teaching method fail spectacularly. When combined with the recent simplification trend, can we really believe that Advanced Oil Processing won't receive the same treatment. And then when that happens, what come next?

And yes, the refinery pipe (see Deadlock989's post) is exactly how I see the change. I especially like how it clearly shows that two things are being burned off (destroyed).

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 638
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by mmmPI »

lacika2000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:00 pm
In other words, I am proposing to use the OR logic {HO || LO || PG} instead of the current AND logic {HO && LO && PG} for refining in the BOP stage. You can still mandate the AND logic for AOP if you want, this is a game design choice for you (Wube) to make.
This would be an equivalent of a built-in flare stack. (?)

The advantages are that it also solve the "problems" like the actual oil processing that is simple. It does it while not punishing new player wanting to fiddle around oil, and allow experienced player to take full advantage of a non-linear gameplay.

My concern is more for the consequences on AOP, with the change proposed, i don't see why would anyone try to manage the deadlock that could occur in AOP. ( in other word , there is way less incentive, that's a less rewarding puzzle , one could rely on BOP the whole game ).

Giving all 3 fluids during BOP, was the previous thing, without the "built-in" flare stack ,so the step during which a player need to understand WHY this is happening was (it seems) too early in the game.

The actual proposal makes it mandadory for any player to solve this by locking necessary fluid behind the deadlock but puts this deadlock in the later stage of the game, the proposal of the built-in flare stack may allow a player to never understand the thing, and still launch a rocket.

Is that taken in consideration ?

Isn't this a bit too stronk of a measure as this proposition means to possibly avoid the puzzle completly ?

maybe giving the player only [HO or PG], [LO or PG] , using the OR logic as you describe, but instead of 3 liquids, only 2,so that AOP is still mandadory. Maybe this way you could also introduce cracking gradually, the 1rst cracking receipe being the one to get the fluid you lack after BOP ?

I agree/think that there must be a better solution than the proposed change out there, hopefully ! :)

FuryoftheStars
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by FuryoftheStars »

I don't want the automatic flaring, either. In some ways it's simpler than the current PG only out solution because it gives you the benefits of the old BOP without any downsides. And I agree with V that this seems to go against the principle of what Factorio is. Course, I still believe that the new BOP is also in this camp, but that's besides the point. If you think about it from a new players perspective, not knowing that BOP used to give HO & LO, then it isn't auto flaring off the fluids from their perspective.
V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am
The "there are too many things on petroleum gas" point is really dangerous to change - if for example we would put sulfur into heavy oil, it could very easily happen that your refinery would deadlock because you only want to produce batteries/acid, say for mining uranium and laser turrets. Even with AOP and proper automated cracking system, the only solution would be to store your petroleum gas/light oil products somewhere - introducing the same problem as BOP used to have, without a possible proper solution. This can happen right now, too, in a case when you would want to produce a lot/only lubricant, or a lot/only rocket fuel. However both of those cases are quite unlikely and generally don't happen too often, or for too long period of time, as the amount of petroleum gas is pretty much always high.
I still disagree that this "is really dangerous to change". This already happened pre-AOP & cracking (hence why you all feel as though the 0.17.60 change needed to be made, if I understand correctly) and so really is no more "dangerous" should it fail. PG would still be required in a lot of things and you can always rebalance the production and consumption ratios to compensate (I certainly would not advocate moving sulfur production from PG -> HO while keeping the same numbers). And if someone is really going to go all hog wild on one product while completely neglecting the rest, then this should happen. You could also make it so sulfur production is similar to solid fuel where you can get it from all 3 fluids, but HO has the best efficiency, and/or you could also introduce reverse cracking (alkylation) recipes (identical to cracking recipes only requiring sulfuric acid instead of water) as a later tech unlock after AOP.



I do have one separate question, though. Obviously you all changed BOP like this because you still perceived it as an issue. You just changed Chem science to use solid fuel in 0.17.0. Aren't most new players going to be using the latest stable (0.16.51)? How do you know that this did not solve the problem?

rhynex
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 52
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 9:55 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by rhynex »

Automatic flare/burn is worse than all of the solutions. It takes away the entire multi-output oil product challenge. Also we dont have a good gui to show if flare is activated or not (I have reasons about not to trust wube on this). I better would like to see my factory to stop than burn excess products automatically.

I am not against burner flare that would be put manually, it is a choice. But no to auto-flare!

Enough challenge has been taken from experienced players. Auto-flare is a terrible direction and shall raise the noise higher, at least mine. Throughput issues shall never be understood. Balancing has to be done on paper, not in game because game destroys your unused product automatically. New player shall learn nothing about balance because factory works magically.

No to auto flare!

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

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Antaios »

V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am
if for example we would put sulfur into heavy oil, it could very easily happen that your refinery would deadlock because you only want to produce batteries/acid, say for mining uranium and laser turrets. Even with AOP and proper automated cracking system, the only solution would be to store your petroleum gas/light oil products somewhere - introducing the same problem as BOP used to have, without a possible proper solution. This can happen right now, too, in a case when you would want to produce a lot/only lubricant, or a lot/only rocket fuel. However both of those cases are quite unlikely and generally don't happen too often, or for too long period of time, as the amount of petroleum gas is pretty much always high.
Coal liquefaction?

User avatar
jodokus31
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1232
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by jodokus31 »

V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am

The "there are too many things on petroleum gas" point is really dangerous to change - if for example we would put sulfur into heavy oil, it could very easily happen that your refinery would deadlock because you only want to produce batteries/acid, say for mining uranium and laser turrets. Even with AOP and proper automated cracking system, the only solution would be to store your petroleum gas/light oil products somewhere - introducing the same problem as BOP used to have, without a possible proper solution. This can happen right now, too, in a case when you would want to produce a lot/only lubricant, or a lot/only rocket fuel. However both of those cases are quite unlikely and generally don't happen too often, or for too long period of time, as the amount of petroleum gas is pretty much always high.
I just want add some arguments, why sulfur from heavy oil would be not only dangerous, but really cool.
The demand for plastics is usually much higher than sulfur, so the case that you end up with too much petroleum is not very likely. But however, at some point, one will encounter this problem.
But it's not that too much petroleum is similar problematic than having to much heavy or light oil with oldBOP. It can be used to produce science, modules, etc. or in worst case as high prio solid fuel, which can be burned off or used in rocketfuel. Too much light oil is the same as too much petroleum, because it can be cracked down to petroleum. So there is a possible proper solution, which would add a lot to oil processing in factorio IMHO.
If someone just wants to produce batteries/lubricant/mining uranium, without anything else, he/she will hit a blocking wall, which is very realistic, understandable and can be solved by using or storing petroleum. As soon as research kicks in, which will be the case sooner or later, the problem is solved. This would be a nice lesson on top

mcdjfp
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by mcdjfp »

rhynex wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 3:35 pm
Automatic flare/burn is worse than all of the solutions. It takes away the entire multi-output oil product challenge. Also we dont have a good gui to show if flare is activated or not (I have reasons about not to trust wube on this). I better would like to see my factory to stop than burn excess products automatically.

I am not against burner flare that would be put manually, it is a choice. But no to auto-flare!

Enough challenge has been taken from experienced players. Auto-flare is a terrible direction and shall raise the noise higher, at least mine. Throughput issues shall never be understood. Balancing has to be done on paper, not in game because game destroys your unused product automatically. New player shall learn nothing about balance because factory works magically.

No to auto flare!
My suggestion at least is a start of game option. Just like you can mess with all sorts of settings like research costs, how much pollution a tree absorbs and so on. It would allow 1 player to have simple fluids, yes with an automatic flare stack, while a second player could not select the option and have the full experience from before the oil changes.

By the way I consider the new basic oil processing to be an automatic flare stack. True it isn't universal, but it automatically burns away unwanted light and heavy oil with only an efficiency cost to the player.

Trebor
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 282
Joined: Sun Apr 30, 2017 1:39 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Trebor »

mcdjfp wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 4:42 pm
My suggestion at least is a start of game option.
viewtopic.php?t=73768

(Shameless plug)

mcdjfp
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by mcdjfp »

That would require maintaining multiple different tech/recipe trees. I like the idea otherwise. I was trying to come up with something where both easy and hard modes could use the same techs and recipes.

User avatar
V453000
Factorio Staff
Factorio Staff
Posts: 261
Joined: Fri Sep 04, 2015 5:51 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by V453000 »

lacika2000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:00 pm
Second, if I understood correctly the current changes, the current BOP does exactly what you claim not to happen in Factorio - namely that things disappear. The current recipe takes 100 oil but produces less than 100 PG, right?
I mean, that's like saying that 20 electronic circuits should result in 20 processing units.
Deadlock989 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 1:18 pm
Because they don't want the game to have any deadlocks at all any more. They don't want the player to have any production problems to solve...
Sure because Advanced oil processing does not exist anymore.

mcdjfp wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:12 pm
V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 8:06 am
I've read somewhere above the "you make BOP have built-in flare stacks but hate the flare stack solution". Obviously the key difference is that AOP has no flare stack available, and the puzzle has to be solved.
1. You missed half of the flare stack comment. The new Basic Oil Processing IS a flare stack that can be used through the entire game. It PERMANENTLY unlinks petroleum gas from light and heavy oil. Regardless of what you say, the puzzle is simpler than it was before. Now instead of always having to balance the three outputs, now only two of the outputs are linked together. Once you have enough light and heavy oil for what you are doing, there is no need for advanced oil processing. Just throw down refineries set to basic oil processing (with the destruction of the light and heavy oil built into the recipe) and there is all the petroleum gas you need without any concern for the other two outputs. What is more of a puzzle (when you need more petroleum gas)? Placing twice as many refineries set to basic oil processing with 1 in and 1 out. Or having to take the heavy oil to a chemical plant to crack it to light, then take that light plus what is coming out of the refinery to another set of crackers to get to get petroleum gas that you were looking for. Remember base layout is a part of the game's puzzle as well, and that aspect, plus some of the resource balancing aspect are simplified by the new recipe.

2. Enough puzzles have been simplified (even if some were fairly minor) recently, that "the puzzle" does not work as an explanation anymore for you to justify or argue against changes. It really doesn't work when you say we won't do this in order to justify doing just that. You say flare stacks (resource destruction) do not fit with Factorio when defending changing a recipe that does just that. It destroys the light and heavy oil when you don't want them (sounds like a flare stack to me).

3. There is a MUCH bigger problem to solve than basic oil processing. You have split the player base into 3 groups. Those that like the direction the game is going with all of the simplifications, those that like complexity (and thus don't like puzzle after puzzle being simplified), and those that don't care. One of these groups is feeling more and more pushed aside. What do you think that the result of that will be?

Instead of forcing everyone to play the same way, give us options. (Some people like more expensive research seeing it as a challenge, others don't like it as it feels like a grind. Since there is a setting for this, both are happy.

4. Mods are not the solution either. Some of the recent simplifications have negatively impacted mods as well such as the mining hardness change.

5. One last question. If the linked outputs are really the issue, will delaying that really help? I have seen the "they will figure it out given some more time," teaching method fail spectacularly. When combined with the recent simplification trend, can we really believe that Advanced Oil Processing won't receive the same treatment. And then when that happens, what come next?

And yes, the refinery pipe (see Deadlock989's post) is exactly how I see the change. I especially like how it clearly shows that two things are being burned off (destroyed).
1. Yes but you HAVE TO set up some Advanced oil processing. And the amount of extra output you get per crude spent is quite worth it to have all of your refineries on it, too. As some people mentioned, in extreme UPS-optimized game it's probably best to minimize the amount of Advanced and try to use Basic as much as possible, but the difference is probably not going to be that massive as you need 3 times more refineries.

2. Sure, just imagine the flare stack there then or assume it's the tall tower in the graphics, no problem?

3. That's a tough question for sure, but you can't always make everyone happy I'm afraid. Though I have to say I don't feel like the game is getting simplified. I'm sorry but I don't think removing pickaxes or assembling machine ingredient count is simplifying anything. And the oil changes only simplify the first step, and make the second more complicated step mandatory while giving the tools to solve the problem properly. I can't really imagine where would such an option for oil processing go (as of options), but the Expensive recipes mode would be a candidate, but you would just get 2 useless oil products, yay? .

4. Mods are absolutely the solution to more replayability, more complexity and more of everything. Didn't the mining hardness get a supplementary feature like mining groups or how it's called that allows the same functionality?

5. It absolutely helps, it makes the basic one work indefinitely until you want some light or heavy from it. And since you unlock the tools to fix the problem along with unlocking the problem, it's much better.


FuryoftheStars wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 2:17 pm
I still disagree that this "is really dangerous to change". This already happened pre-AOP & cracking (hence why you all feel as though the 0.17.60 change needed to be made, if I understand correctly) and so really is no more "dangerous" should it fail. PG would still be required in a lot of things and you can always rebalance the production and consumption ratios to compensate (I certainly would not advocate moving sulfur production from PG -> HO while keeping the same numbers). And if someone is really going to go all hog wild on one product while completely neglecting the rest, then this should happen. You could also make it so sulfur production is similar to solid fuel where you can get it from all 3 fluids, but HO has the best efficiency, and/or you could also introduce reverse cracking (alkylation) recipes (identical to cracking recipes only requiring sulfuric acid instead of water) as a later tech unlock after AOP.

I do have one separate question, though. Obviously you all changed BOP like this because you still perceived it as an issue. You just changed Chem science to use solid fuel in 0.17.0. Aren't most new players going to be using the latest stable (0.16.51)? How do you know that this did not solve the problem?
But exactly, it's "not dangerous" except it would basically need to introduce reverse-cracking recipes because of the bad case that could happen (and IMO shouldn't). Reverse-cracking sounds like a big mess, though I'm not entirely sure what do I think about that to too much detail.

The solid fuel in 0.17.0 did not really work. The science only consumed miniscule amounts (especially since you could make it from light oil) so it was still just a matter of time.

lacika2000
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 54
Joined: Sat Jul 07, 2018 7:25 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by lacika2000 »

Let’s just make sure I am not missing something: the current BOP is the definition of autoflare in my opinion, as it only gives PG with amounts noticeably less than the oil input and it does not produce any other oil products. This was put in by the devs to alleviate the players’ struggle to manage three concurrent streams with the mechanics of all three being suspended when any of them are backlogged.

So those opposing my proposal of the optional possibility to draw all three oil products from BOP without blocking all three if one or two are backlogged, are you OK with the current (post 0.17.60 version) approach in BOP, i.e., autoflaring to PG?

If yes: maybe you want to reconsider your point of view about autoflaring in general...

If not: do you have a better solution to facilitate the mechanics of allowing multiple outputs without being affected by backlogging on all three at the same time? Just saying “no to autoflaring” will not change the devs’ mind...

User avatar
Deadlock989
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 2384
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2015 7:41 pm

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Deadlock989 »

V453000 wrote:
Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:12 pm
Sure because Advanced oil processing does not exist anymore.
Well, it's early days, but in a few more months I'm sure you'll find a reason to strip all the challenge out of that as well.

Maybe some sort of 7x7 one in, one out pipe that dumps light oil and rocket fuel.
"If Stalin had a good writeup on programming, would linking that be dangerous?"

Post Reply

Return to “News”