Make the planet you're on more "alive"

[Flame1869]

While playing factorio, i noticed how "dead" the planet you have crashed on actually is.
the only living things an the planet are the aliens and some fishes, beside that there are no organisms moving around the surface.
Also with the trees, you can cut them down and toch them, but there isnt much more to it.

I would love to see some the planet itself more involved into the gameplay somehow.
For example: more use to wood except a wooden crate or as fuel. maybe a way to point out a free-farm area where robots will replant/regrow trees. A nice gameplay twist could be your base pollution that comes into play here.
Something else could be the variety in trees. For example some trees that are able to produce rubbery substances that can be used in some kind of process and so on and so forth.

Same with the organisms on the planet. I can imagine some more complex structures (involve food ? also for the player itself?) in it.

Well just my 2 cent i noticed when playing this fantastic game.

[bobingabout]

Your stuff about trees... Mods do that.

One of the issues with Treefarm mod (it allows you to assign an area for construction robots to plant and collect trees), is that the scripting required to handle this kills game performance, which is why more modern tree farming mods simply add a greenhouse entity (assembling machine) instead.

The ability to have trees naturally growing, and regrowing by themselves, plus the ability to plant seedlings naturally in the base game would be an improvement in my opinion. There are already topics about this if you look.

As for no other wildlife... long story short, game performance.




As for the topic title... it threw me at first. You're not Your.

I try not to mention it too often, but I just don't understand how people can't get it right.
The only reason why I mention it at all is... If I'm doing something wrong, and nobody tells me it's wrong, I'll keep doing it wrong. I can't fix an issue I don't know about.

explanation

Here's a simple rule that should help you tell which to write. If you can replace it with "You are" (or "You were") and the sentence still makes sense, then it's You're. If you can replace it with "belonging to you", then it's your.
EG:
You are here => You're here.
I found a phone belonging to you => I found your phone.
Make the planet that you are on more alive => Make the planet you're on more alive.


Other that drive me batty include:

• To (performing an action), Too (in excess, or in addition (as well)), Two (the number 2)
• Ending a sentence with "at". EG, That's where it's at... break it down, remove the contractions... "That is where it is at"... the expanded sentence makes sense without the "at", the contracted sentence doesn't make sense only because you've contracted it is to it's. instead of adding a useless word, don't contract, and you end up with "That's where it is", which makes far more sense.
• "I've got"... same rule: "I've got it" ... "I have got it" ... "I have it" makes perfect sense, adding in a redundant word to make up for a contraction is bad practice.

The "I've got" issue doesn't bother me as much as the "it's at" issue because I live in the UK and have heard people saying "I've got" all my life, where as "It's at" seems to be rarely used here, but highly in America. My Australian friend is the other way around, and "I've got" drives him up the wall where "It's at" doesn't bother him. Needless to say we both drive each other up the wall exchanging these two grammatical bad habbits.

[olafthecat]

Well...this is amusing!
I always check my posts for correct spelling and grammar and edit them immediately afterwards if I see anything.
I can see you're frustrations about this and it rather funny to see you are complaining about it.
Still, there are many people on here whose main language is not English, so please don't blame them for their mistakes.

[bobingabout]

Yeah, I do get that most people aren't native English speakers, which is one reason why I try not to mention it very often, and when I do I try to be polite about it.

The fact that I didn't get what the title meant right away because of this grammatical error is what pushed me to mention it this time.


There's a graffiti on the wall somewhere around where I work that says "your gay", my inner silly comes out and says "what about my gay?" and "I don't have a gay." etc.

[Flame1869]

Yeah, I do get that most people aren't native English speakers, which is one reason why I try not to mention it very often, and when I do I try to be polite about it.

The fact that I didn't get what the title meant right away because of this grammatical error is what pushed me to mention it this time.


There's a graffiti on the wall somewhere around where I work that says "your gay", my inner silly comes out and says "what about my gay?" and "I don't have a gay." etc.

Whaha i never knew i was writing it wrong, so i dont mind at all pointing it out.
Although i do realize now that none of my native English colleagues ever mentioned it

[AileTheAlien]

As for no other wildlife... long story short, game performance.

The game could have visual-only wildlife, that doesn't interact with the rest of the world. e.g. Birds (or their shadows) which would basically act like clouds - they look pretty, but don't interact with the world. Next cheapest would be birds that fly away from the player (and biters) but don't affect anything else in the world.

[impetus maximus]

i've typed your instead of you're so many times, i just type 'you are' now.