Train stations V vs H

[tehroach]

Personally I think snapping trains to grid would be just enough. Fixing it's size isn't vital

I would strongly agree with this.
As this would solve most of the perceived problems involving trains, without adding more problems.

But I still would prefer H = V : )
However I'm not too concerned and will accept anything Wube will do with it, even if they leave it as it is, since problem isn't too bothering, just a bit : )

But is having H = V really worth the hack fix and time wasted?
As the decision that governs the reasons behind V != H was made years ago and Wube have already stated that they are not prepared to waste the time necessary to make the changes for a proper fix.

Nor would I ever want them to.
The way I see it, is V != H is at worst a minor inconvenience, but it can also be seen as a game choice.

H != V doesn't bother me in the slightest, but something that does bother me to the point of nausea is FPS's that haven't bothered with the stretch and shrink on the edges,
I would hate to see the effects of this when it was focused center screen, especially with the number of train rides I end up taking on one of my average Factorio gaming session.

[RobertTerwilliger]

@tehroach, stop flaming, please. I already see you're bias at this question. We have heard you.

IF devs think they have to fix it - than they have reasons to. You may not know it, as well as many others. They will do their job anyway despite your personal opinion. Unless community resistance is heavy enough. However, as poll shows, resistance is minimal - just some guys thet are fearing:
a) they will have to make tiiiiny change in their setups
b) they won't have odd option to compress V station comparing to H
c) devs will "sink 100500 working hours to solve the tiniest thing in the world"
We all have herad enough of that. Be patient. Wube's work have NEVER dissapointed me, and I don't see ANY perspective for it to happen. Factorio is an excellent game, developed by really reasonable team. And latter is the reason of former.

[tehroach]

@tehroach, stop flaming, please. I already see you're bias at this question. We have heard you.

LOL so flaming is your straw-man argument?
Please point out my flame comments?

Sorry it is not flaming, if I have a logical equal or greater argument against every point that the opposition has.

Yes I am Bias and strongly against this!

Sorry if I offended you, but also sorry just deal with it
At least I don't try to hide my bias under the guise of equality!

[brunzenstein]

At least I don't try to hide my bias under the guise of equality!

I go with tehrorach as it is probably nowadays in times of overblown political correctness not liked to have diverting opinions from the mass, anyhow one should be free to oust whatever personal view / opinion he has - even in a robust cultivated manner. I see no false whatsoever - just a healthy diverting opinion.
And that is, was I said, healthy

[RobertTerwilliger]

Sorry, maybe I was offensive - I didn't mean it. I just wanted to say you keep posting your "against" again and again. and it becomes annoying. You have expressed. Many times. Enough with it, really. As a thread author I feel some responsibility on what's going on here, but all I can do is asking to stop posting the same again and again.

You used to be reasonable person. I don't know why exactly this theme have hurt you so much, but you have to overcome it. Considering none of the developers commented any community reaction on this theme (in the main tread as well), they seem to have a straight plan and simply don't care.

Once again, there's probably a good reason to do it exactly now, or else they would probably not bother with it at all. I suspect it is somehow related to fluid wagon being put on hold, maybe troubles in making connection for it, but that's just a guess.

Anyway, I'm quiting.

[tehroach]

Once again, there's probably a good reason to do it exactly now, or else they would probably not bother with it at all.

This is the exact reason to be vocal about this subject NOW, while there is two well defined paths.

I didn't want to upset you or make you quit, all I wanted was a definite opinion from you, hence the reason why I kept posing questions to you, (which by the way you are yet to address), as I like to argue a disputed point to its best logical conclusion.

If you truly just want me to piss off (LOL) give me a solid answer that I am unable to logically poke a hole in,

I am not someone who will resort to name calling when my reasoning runs dry, Instead I will bow down to a superior argument.
However I will keep posting counter arguments while there is holes to be filled in the oppositions argument.

[RobertTerwilliger]

I didn't want to upset you or make you quit, all I wanted was a definite opinion from you, hence the reason why I kept posing questions to you, (which by the way you are yet to address), as I like to argue a disputed point to its best logical conclusion.

I've posted my opinion few times, maybe in main thread - don't remember exactly (I don't like to be repetative. Almost like in anecdote: "I never say twice. Try to remember it - I never. say. twice.")
But if you want to see my opinion, then it should probably include it's evolution.

At first I prefered idea to simply snap waggons to grid, so less ugly graphics are invonved, and it's close enough to what we have right now, so it souldn't be hard. And a gap in horizontal hitbox to have equal inserters - because having different quantity of inserters always bothered me (kinda "why the hell can I have here less inserters than there?!")

BUT after someone have posted just a few technical moments (don't remember who, and probably it was in the main thread) I realized that just snapping to grid is to redo whole hitbox lenght recalculation on turning, in the opposite of making equal stations - there will be no stretching/shrinking engine-wise at all (as engine treats game as 100% upside-down despite it looks angled for us).
All "stretching" or appearance of gap will be just graphical. Considering game uses different sprite frame for different entity positions anyway - this is most logical decision - it removes unnecesaary game-engine math, fixes inconsistency in gameplay (different lengths), fixes out-of-grid.
So it removes huge amount of work from coders, in price of giving a little more work to artists (as they anyway have to resize graphics - now they'll have to make it fit equal H&V size)

However, if "opinion" you're asking for is related to whether Wube has to change anyithing at all - I'd say, I don't see obvious reason to do it right now, because it still works quite well overall, but if they want to - there's probably a good reason for it.
As I suspect, there might be:
- trains out-of-grid makes really-really disgusting tanker connection to pipes
- considering recent FFF about rail signal placement (which is even more minor issue honestly) is they want to ballance trains with bots so trains'd be much easier to undesrtand and handle (its easy enough for me, and for many others, but I suspect that may be quite hard for quite a bit of users)
- again considering recent FFF and plans on fluid wagon, they want to implement trains properly and forever, and never return to any of their issues and then focus work on another full-of-placeholders question. Like realy reasonable people, solving problems one-by-one, focused and effectively.
Once again, these "reasons" are all just a guess. They might have completely different reasons, which are invisible for me or you, but they have them, for sure.

[tehroach]

Doesn't it feel better to state that you are bias and not be confined to the PC box.

I've posted my opinion few times, maybe in main thread - don't remember exactly (I don't like to be repetative. Almost like in anecdote: "I never say twice. Try to remember it - I never. say. twice.")

It is a often very good idea to repeat and reword a "great idea"
As what seams like a great idea to ones self the first time they say it,
can often be reviled as the terrible idea it is, on a consecutive time it is reiterated.

also

That would be good if, I were you,
but I am not and it is like me asking you,
"where did I put my car keys"
as unless you are some kind of creep (which I suspect you are NOT) and have taken the time to spy on me, you should have NO idea where they are.


Any way even though the poll was worded in a bias way we can all see where it is going as only 28/70 current votes have chosen paths that would accept the graphical error as a solution.

[RobertTerwilliger]

Doesn't it feel better to state that you are bias and not be confined to the PC box.

I've posted my opinion few times, maybe in main thread - don't remember exactly (I don't like to be repetative. Almost like in anecdote: "I never say twice. Try to remember it - I never. say. twice.")

It is a often very good idea to repeat and reword a "great idea"
As what seams like a great idea to ones self the first time they say it,
can often be reviled as the terrible idea it is, on a consecutive time it is reiterated.

also

That would be good if, I were you,
but I am not and it is like me asking you,
"where did I put my car keys"
as unless you are some kind of creep (which I suspect you are NOT) and have taken the time to spy on me, you should have NO idea where they are.


Any way even though the poll was worded in a bias way we can all see where it is going as only 28/70 current votes have chosen paths that would accept the graphical error as a solution.

Well, my English isn't good enough to understand meaning of all your idioms.

I tried to make a poll maximum un-bias, however it is impossible to completely eliminate personal thoughts when doing such things, because you will always miss something. Not even because being bias, but just because "how many people - that many thoughts are there" (dunno if English already has similar kind of a proverb (probably it has), I've just translated one from my language). As you can notice, I've even added an option after poll creation, because I completely missed it. And I honestly accept it IS an option and has to be in poll. Well, results were reset, but even if I knew it before making change - I'd do it anyway, because THIS IS a principally different option. An opinion on whether the issue should be solved NOW OR LATER is NOT A QUESTION of the poll. Not because it isn't important, but because poll isn't about it.

And 28/70 is 40%, which is majority at the moment.
But yes any poll has it's hidden un-accuracy. E.g.:
- for devs' option vote all people who are just blindly think "they are developers, they know what are they doing"
- for "leave as it is" vote most people who pathologically fear of any changes - like redesigning 100 stations in their world
- for "total redesign" vote all people who "know everything better"
- some people vote just for majority option, but NOT in anonymous polls (then they just don't vote)
HOWEVER, if eliminate all this votes, result will stay roughly the same, because people groups mentioned above are far not the majority of all votes, even in corresponding options. There will be always enough people who made a choice after analyzing the question.

Also choice can be changed (luckily corresponding option is available when creating a poll). Personally I have made a change in my opinion because of being reasoned by fair and logical argument. Does this mean I'm bias? I think even opposite. Bias people never change their mind.

[tehroach]

1 - Leave is as it is to remain old station designs (no graphics stretch)
2 - Make equal H and V stations mostly by graphics stretching (graphics stretch)
3 - Make equal H and V station using gaps between wagons to reduce graphics stretching (graphics stretch)
4 - Simply snap wagons and engines to grid and leave us the fact we need separate designs for H and V stations with different inserter numbers (no graphics stretch)
5 - Snap wagons and engines to grid, but leave loading hitbox gaps in H stations so despite different length H and V stations will have same number of available inserters (no graphics stretch)
6 - Total redesign of train units' size to make less noticeable all graphical issues related to isometric view on top-down grid (no graphics stretch)

The reason that I called your poll bias is because it gives only two options that would require the graphical error (options 2 and 3) and four options that oppose the graphical error (1,4,5 and 6)
This creates a 1:2 bias
Because at first glance it appears that majority of people in the poll prefer option 3 (to graphically stretch the tow bar of the train)

But in reality the poll shows that the majority don't want the graphics stretch, however their opinions are divided up amongst a larger number of options

Currently 61% (45/74) of the votes are against the graphics stretch option and only 39% (29/74) support it, a clear winning position for DON'T introduce the graphical error.



The reason that I ask you questions, is to further my understanding of your side of the argument,
and in doing so test for weaknesses in both sides of the argument.



IMO it is good to be bias, as I simply don't trust people who pretend to be unbiased because

In my experience all people are bias by nature,
we all like what we like and dislike what we dislike
Some of our likes and dislikes are heavily influenced by the culture we live in and others are simply personal.
Whether that be strictly on belief (or need) or influenced by a logical conclusion.

The only true way fore someone to be in an unbiased state, is when the outcome either way will not affect them;
they therefore can never have any first hand knowledge of the situation! so how can they ever truly understand the situation?

This is why I hate PC comments so much, because they either simply don't know or have taken the axiom of truth in an attempt to hide their bias.

I suppose in my world there is a great difference between someone who is bias and someone who simply won't ever change their mind.

[RobertTerwilliger]

If you hate PC comments... Simply don't go to any forum. Why should we read how do you treat everyone wrong and bias, while being same yourself? Not everyone is like you, so why do you think they are? O_o
____________________________________________________

In the poll in truth there's only 4 REAL options, and 2 of them are simply divided to sub-options.
I.e. there're 1. 2a. 2b. 3a. 3b. 4. And you know it well, 'cause you have yourself joined 2a and 2b when calculating those 29/74.
Also "graphical error" will be present in 2a and significantly reduced in 2b.

Why the poll can be called bias, if it has certain ratio? I.e. unlike USA 2-party system we in Ukraine have many different political parties. Do you really think we have only 2 options at elections, just to have "fair" 1:1 ratio? This is nonsense! We simply have second tier on president/major elections to determine how much people FOR and how much people AGAINST the finalist. And usually there's MUCH less than 50% of electorate who elect the president, because less than 50% will still form majority. Why? Because another 50%+ don't form organized opposition.

Same here - 1. 3(a+b) and 4 -choosers won't unite against if there would be only 2 options and will distribute in certain ratio, or simply ignore the poll, not finding option that really express their opinion, thus being even more "bias poll". If you want to find that out for sure - make your own poll "with blackjack and hookers" ( (c) B. B. Rodriguez) and set there only 2 options - "FOR" and "AGAINST" making H & V equal.

The reason that I ask you questions, is to further my understanding of your side of the argument, and in doing so test for weaknesses in both sides of the argument.

No, you are not trying to understand my POV. If you did - you'd get it already.
________________________________________

And this whole thread has no sense, since

Albert is preparing the new train graphics which will solve the horizontal/vertical inconsistency

So no one asking not yours neither mine opinion. They just do their job, and I accept it. You should as well. If you won't like it when it's done - then, and only then, you should start expressing your frustrations on this topic again.

[Koub]

Please guys focus on the topic without attacking each other's way of expressing one's opinion. I have scissors and I'm ready to use them.

[Klonan]

Honestly this topic is kind've silly,
There's no need for a poll, we have said which direction we're heading in

Each wagon will be 6 tiles, with a 1 tile gap between wagons
They will be equal lengths in both directions

If people can't discuss this in a civil way then,
Then i will kindly invite them to take themselves away

[RobertTerwilliger]

Honestly this topic is kind've silly,
There's no need for a poll, we have said which direction we're heading in

Each wagon will be 6 tiles, with a 1 tile gap between wagons
They will be equal lengths in both directions

If people can't discuss this in a civil way then,
Then i will kindly invite them to take themselves away

I personally wanted to find out average opinion, not to use for pressure on community or developers, or for any other reason.
Because vocal minority quite flamed the way you've suggested, which is uncommon, so I was just curious, how many people really like or dislike the idea. And to cover wider audience I just added options that were needed, as I thought.

Please guys focus on the topic without attacking each other's way of expressing one's opinion. I have scissors and I'm ready to use them.

Agree, discussion have gone somewhere offtopic and now mostly about difference of opinions and how to acquire somewhat proper statistics.

Honestly, this thread is drank to dry, considering life goes on and the question in the poll became completely non-actual after FFF#134 1st paragraph.

[tehroach]

Honestly this topic is kind've silly,
There's no need for a poll, we have said which direction we're heading in

But was the feed back on the posed plans to change the Circuit network also silly?

as you did take the advice of your fans dislike to that idea and it is quite clear that the majority would prefer a different approach to this solution; other than the two proposed solutions.

Each wagon will be 6 tiles, with a 1 tile gap between wagons
They will be equal lengths in both directions

If the gap exists in both states of the train, I could probably live with that,
however the current proposals only state that the gap will be on the vertical and not the horizontal.

[taiiat]

But is having H = V really worth the hack fix and time wasted?

"is fixing unintended problems that directly impact gameplay worth it?" - all Developers would say yes.
and i certainly agree. fixing problems is better than ignoring problems. especially if a quick(ish) improvement can be found to reduce the impact of a problem without bogging down the Development Pipeline.

besides, the bogging worries that some have for literally every game are generally unfounded - it's pretty uncommon that Development for a game consists of only one singular pipeline, due to the different jobs that are involved.
so there's usually no reason to worry.
especially for relatively small things, where it's mostly brainstorming and considering/trying options - these things are small by definition, which lets them fit into empty space when taking needed breaks from the big stuff or just to fill time gaps while waiting for things to process or the like.

it is quite clear that the majority would prefer a different approach to this solution

[Citation Needed]

[tehroach]

it is quite clear that the majority would prefer a different approach to this solution

[Citation Needed]

I didn't think that a forum was formal enough to warrant citation, however even formal works never cite themselves.

But is having H = V really worth the hack fix and time wasted?

"is fixing unintended problems that directly impact gameplay worth it?" - all Developers would say yes.

Should we put [Citation Needed] here as well, lol.

Considering that they have already stated that they will not be re-working the 45 perspective, I think you have already found a developer that contradicts your statement.

But is having H = V really worth the hack fix and time wasted?

"is fixing unintended problems that directly impact gameplay worth it?"

Your question is basically just a more generalized version of mine, but it brings up a good point.

The fact that V != H is the least annoying problems with the trains and even after this hack fix,
East will still not equal West and vice versa, perpendicular.
Nor will it address any of the other odd/even inconsistency's currently inherent of the trains.

So I suppose I should rephrase my question.
Why would you want a "fix" that doesn't "fix", but will look ugly?

[Klonan]

If the gap exists in both states of the train, I could probably live with that,
however the current proposals only state that the gap will be on the vertical and not the horizontal.

The gap will be for both horizontal and vertical trains, as was shown in the pictures of the friday facts

[tehroach]

If the gap exists in both states of the train, I could probably live with that,
however the current proposals only state that the gap will be on the vertical and not the horizontal.

The gap will be for both horizontal and vertical trains, as was shown in the pictures of the friday facts

I should have said that differently,
the gap will be noticeable on the vertical and not the horizontal.

[Klonan]

If the gap exists in both states of the train, I could probably live with that,
however the current proposals only state that the gap will be on the vertical and not the horizontal.

The gap will be for both horizontal and vertical trains, as was shown in the pictures of the friday facts

I should have said that differently,
the gap will be noticeable on the vertical and not the horizontal.

The graphics are being redone, the 'gap' isnt about the graphics but about the tile size. There will be completely new train graphics for 0.13