I've been playing factorio for a while but decided to register on the forum to comment on this point. Can't agree more with the above. The paragraph about blueprints in the controversial opinions article came across as being seriously condescending. Factorio is by and large a single player game. Obviously there's co-op, but for most it's a SP game. Of course the dev team can set up a framework within which the game is played (i.e. the game mechanics) but outside of that, stop trying to dictate how people play single player games! If people want to insta-blueprint something, they should absolutely have the freedom to do so! Writing things like (and I paraphrase here) 'this is how the game should really be played' smells strongly of elitism. You're not a *real* factorio engineer unless you play the game our way. Nope, it's up to me how I want to play within the sandbox created by the game mechanics. To be sure this isn't how I personally chose to use blueprints but if people want to play that way they should be able to do so.eradicator wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 6:09 pmI think this is typical "designers overcontrol syndrom" (or whatever you want to call it). I don't think that's a good way to design games. To me the blueprint system is one of the deciding features that makes factorio so unique where every other game (minecraft, etc) constantly forces you to build the exact same layout over and over and over again. By hand. I can't describe the agony. Just look at the number of "early bots" mods to get a feeling of just how agonyzing it is to manually build the same thing more than once.Ghoulish wrote: ↑Wed Aug 28, 2019 5:44 pmTwinsen,
To address your thoughts on blueprints.
I understand your reasoning behind wishing to only have blueprints as a MODed feature, allowing (especially a new player) To stamp down a whole factory from a blueprint (I've seen such blueprint books) Defeats the whole point to Factorio.
Blueprints (plus robots) perfectly solve this problem. But if someone decides to use it to copy large factory bits from the internet why is that wrong? Maybe they're having more fun with other bits of the game. Maybe they're learning from others? Maybe... they're even participating in a forum thread to find an optimal solution for yet another self-imposed problem. There are so many reasons *for* blueprint sharing. And the only reason against is "but i want them to play MY way!". And besides removing the library wouldn't even solve the problem. It'd just lead to people posting pictures instead of strings (many already do), and other people rebuilding those pictures in their games. Or just start sharing savegame files of empty maps with blueprints. As a designer you have to accept that people want to and will enjoy your game in ways other than you originally intended. You can try to "guide" people, but you shouldn't put them on an iron leash. But this is clearly something you already know, so maybe you just forgot about it .
I don't feel that bots are at all OP. They're laughably inefficient for long range logistics and belts are far superior for medium range transport. Short range high-intensity complex production, boosted by beacons is where the bots really come in to their own, for example final assembly of satellites.
The only other point I have is that I like inserters the way they are now. Granted it can be complex to calculate their throughput but given the scenarios in question that's absolutely realistic - of course the throughput would be dependant on the inserter type, item supply rate etc. I sympathise with the performance argument but the proposed behaviour feels like an unnecessary simplification.