Page 2 of 2

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 1:35 am
by JohnyDL
So you're saying before you can have turrets up and running (cause you'd just about have electric set up at this point I'd guess) you could handle a constant stream of biter attacks on normal ore and water settings and the most extreme biter and pollution spread settings? I don't believe it but I'd happily watch a 10 minute youtube video to be proven wrong.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 8:52 am
by BlakeMW
In 0.12 for funsies I tried some really masochistic deathworld settings, max biters plus smallest starting area and stuff. The most fun were ones with small starting area max biters and rerolling until getting hardcore desert. It's not as impossible as it sounds, I used a "roving factory" strategy, where I had my few burner mining drills and moved them from ore patch to ore patch so I could always protect them. I built screens of stone furnaces to slow down the advance of biters: stone furnaces being much cheaper than walls and having no tech requirement (pipes are another potential low tech wall). Having only the pistol sucks but with enough stone furnaces to keep the biters busy it worked. I haven't tried testing the limits of 0.15 starts particularly not ramping up the extra options we have now (I have ramped up expansion rate on Deathworld) but there are three things to note: Starting areas are a lot bigger now than in 0.12, the pistol kills small biters in only 3 shots instead of 8 and the player has 250hp instead of 100hp. So I imagine you could crank up biters to 11 use a small starting area, roll a desert and still establish a factory.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Fri Oct 27, 2017 5:18 pm
by nljr
I'm an odd man out here, because I love having lots of fuel standing around just waiting to boost my startup speed.

But if it bothers some people, maybe they should start with a small amount of hand grenades? Like 6 left over from the shipwreck. That's enough to clear space on 3 different deposits.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 10:02 pm
by sarcolopter
JohnyDL wrote:So you're saying before you can have turrets up and running (cause you'd just about have electric set up at this point I'd guess) you could handle a constant stream of biter attacks on normal ore and water settings and the most extreme biter and pollution spread settings? I don't believe it but I'd happily watch a 10 minute youtube video to be proven wrong.
uh oh this random nerd doesn't believe me, better start caring or something i guess lmao

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:22 pm
by JohnyDL
sarcolopter wrote:
JohnyDL wrote:So you're saying before you can have turrets up and running (cause you'd just about have electric set up at this point I'd guess) you could handle a constant stream of biter attacks on normal ore and water settings and the most extreme biter and pollution spread settings? I don't believe it but I'd happily watch a 10 minute youtube video to be proven wrong.
uh oh this random nerd doesn't believe me, better start caring or something i guess lmao
haha :D I'm just calling it how I see it, bullshit trolling that adds nothing to the discussion and just designed to promote making the game less enjoyable for other peolpe but I'd love to be proven wrong, if I am, cause I think it'd be an awesome lesson in how to handle biters in the most extreme setup for factorio. Normal ore, no trees, max polution, max biter spread, max evolution settings.

Either way is good for me.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Mon Oct 30, 2017 9:03 am
by bobingabout
Trees growing on ore, hmm...

I am reminded of an episode of duck tales where Scrooge McDuck follows a trail of gold infused paper to a site where trees growing on top of a gold deposit were absorbing it and contained gold.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Tue Oct 31, 2017 9:11 am
by Engimage
A little starting area post-generation ore patch deforestation would help the game for sure.
Upvoting.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 5:01 am
by ItsDarthChaos
I for one don't mind if ore patches are covered in trees. It doesn't take terribly long to clear them, and by the time you get the wood gathered up, you should be fine on wood all the way up to when you can research the steel power poles. My problem with the spawn generation is when it drops you in the middle of a forest that would literally take hours to clear to have a proper area to build a starter base in.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 2:34 pm
by AileTheAlien
Cribbit wrote:I think a better solution would be "suggested maps" for new players to start on.
I agree with this. Would be pretty easy to put in the game too - there's pre-set maps for the missions, so you could have pre-set maps for new players to choose from. As a more experienced player, I would find them useful too, when I don't feel like re-rolling the dice to get a map I like. A short list like, "heavy trees start", "plenty of oil", "short on copper", or whatever, would be a nice way to get a decent map without dice-rolling.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Sat Nov 04, 2017 6:20 pm
by Jap2.0
Or a list of maps compiled by the community - I know there have been lists of map exchange strings in the past, but it might be cool if you could share them, and if they were officially supported in-game by Wube (so you didn't go have to go look for them), perhaps with a nice picture of the spawn and map view. That could also tell you what version it is for, so you don't have to worry about compatability issues.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Fri Nov 17, 2017 7:52 pm
by wpirobotbuilder
Looks like we might see fewer trees in the starting area as of 0.16 -- https://www.factorio.com/blog/post/fff-217

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:10 pm
by Dixi
I think variety is a good thing. So if I got some trees around starting area I'll chop them down or reroll, depending on my goals for this game.
More annoying are trees on a car trips around, I often collide with them. But I dunno will it be good if we see less trees, or bad, since they prevent pollution, and that is important.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:29 pm
by sarcolopter
JohnyDL wrote:
Sat Oct 28, 2017 11:22 pm
haha :D I'm just calling it how I see it, bullshit trolling that adds nothing to the discussion and just designed to promote making the game less enjoyable for other peolpe but I'd love to be proven wrong, if I am, cause I think it'd be an awesome lesson in how to handle biters in the most extreme setup for factorio. Normal ore, no trees, max polution, max biter spread, max evolution settings.

Either way is good for me.
[/quote]

"This completely trivial thing that any noob can do is impossible"

Hey guess what, I can also split belts with a splitter! WoooOOOaaaaAAaaahhh

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Tue Nov 27, 2018 6:05 pm
by npuldon
that's why I like the RSO mod. It removes trees on ore patches at the spawn via the mod settings config.

Cheers

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:37 am
by mrvn
Zavian wrote:
Wed Oct 18, 2017 9:47 pm
The player has just crashlanded in a ship right ? So before spawning the player in to a new game, just clear a circular area around the player similar to an impact crater.
The AAI mods create some fires (and have parts of the crashed ship). So if your starting position if in a forest then it will burn down around you.

Re: Early game should require less tree removal from ore patches

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 11:46 am
by 5thHorseman
Dixi wrote:
Sun Nov 26, 2017 10:10 pm
sarcolopter wrote:
Mon Nov 26, 2018 3:29 pm
Aw, man. If you'd just waited like 7 more hours, it'd have been a full year since the last post.