Player speed: More unlocks

[Dreepa]

Skyrim did it well, on a conceptual level: The higher you go, the more dangerous it gets, iirc.

I fear not : Thought I love Skyrim, the difficulty raise is just mechanical, mostly scaled on your level (which I hate as a mechanism).
Balancing how difficult a game is while you advance in your playthrough does not make consensus.

Do we want things to be harder as we advance ? Why should the challenge always increase up to the point you start dropping people who can't master the game enough ?

Do we want the game to become increasingly easy, as the player gains access to better tech and stuff, allowing him to wipe the content ? Another way to lose people, because who wants to trivialize the content once far enough in the playthrough.

Do we want a constant challenge, artificially adjusting the threat level to what the player seems able to survive ? What the point into progressing then (those who have experienced vanilla Oblivion know what I'm talking about) ?

It makes sense for a 100% pure puzzle game to become increasingly difficult on the puzzle aspect. Factorio does have some "puzzleness" in it, but is not what I call a puzzle game (as Hexcells series, for example, can be, for those who know it).

That is why you mke design decisions. You decide what experience you want to create. You define a purpose for your feature, and the means and rules how to achieve them. Making good games, means making hard decisions. I have seen quite a lot of developer that shy away from making the hard decisions. From designing a default way to play. And they get lost in the vast space of possibilities. Ending up with games, that have potential but never delivering a well set up out of the box experience. It is also often the difference between a junior designer and a senior designer. The junior wants it all, tries to make it all happen, and then leaves it to the player to decide. The senior guys know, that the new player just wants to play and only the veteran will get to the point where he knows how to deal with customization and all those optional settings.

You ask very valid questions, yes. Those question are answered via intent. The intent of the game designer and his vision.

[bobucles]

Some jerkface once said that the objective of "perfection" is not achieved when there is nothing left to be added. You reach perfection when there is nothing left to be taken away. I'm sure that's relevant to the topic somehow.

[Dreepa]

Some jerkface once said that the objective of "perfection" is not achieved when there is nothing left to be added. You reach perfection when there is nothing left to be taken away. I'm sure that's relevant to the topic somehow.

Yea, often also framed "Reduce to the max". It is a design philosophy which has it place. Though I do not think it necessarily applies to build up games. Build up games basically are a journey through the content. What is the next building? What is the next resource? What can I do with it?
When games like Sim City, Anno, etc. end, you wish you had more buildings. However, if you play a PvP 5v5 counterstrike, it is entirely different. You concentrate on winning and too much stuff would make the game too complex and less focused on fighting the enemy.
Or if you make a sidescroller, you try to keep the mechanics simple yet you try to create a lot of variation by permutation of core mechanics and especially the level design. A good jump n run game is a perfect example of few highly polished and good controllable core mechanics (jump, jump on enemies, jump against reward boxes, pick up goodies), where the level design really is what drives the games challenge (re-using the same stuff over and over in a gazillion different combinations).

I think the motto has a place, but it really depends on the kind of game you are making.

[Zavian]

" ... perfection" is not achieved when there is nothing left to be added. You reach perfection when there is nothing left to be taken away.

.

I think it also applies to build up games. Part of applying that maxim is deciding what should be kept and what to remove, because you can't remove everything, otherwise you have nothing left. You need to consider whether the building/game mechanic adds useful and enjoyable gameplay to the rest of the game.

Eg there is a current thread about adding resistance and voltage drop/power loss to the electric network. Even if it existed now, you could easily argue that it doesn't add useful and enjoyable gameplay and should be cut from the game. You could also argue that the existing fluid mechanics could also be simplified to remove flow rates etc. If factorio was a race to launch the spaceship as soon as possible, then you could easily argue for removing nuclear power, on the basis that no-one would take that sidetrack on the research tree, everyone will go straight for the missile silo. (Note I'm not arguing in favour of any of these viewpoints, I'm simply pointing out examples where you could apply the maxim).

[bobucles]

I think it also applies to build up games. Part of applying that maxim is deciding what should be kept and what to remove, because you can't remove everything, otherwise you have nothing left. You need to consider whether the building/game mechanic adds useful and enjoyable gameplay to the rest of the game.

Basically this. The answer isn't always solid or absolute either. It's more of an art than a science to be able to say "X is worth it, Y is okay, Z is excessive and/or pointless". The play experience is very subjective and there's no shortage of opinions to go around.

I think the most important part of the argument is knowing exactly what your ideas will do and how they will transform once they're in the game. It's one thing to say "I want more damage types, resistances etc." under the simple fact that more is always better (right? right???). But if you say that Factorio isn't a game about combat, building an entire pokemon table of elements won't really change the core experience of building a factory. It's just. Fluff.

Nuclear power is definitely not a requirement to launch the rocket, but it does add a new puzzle of reactors and heat pipes that is exciting to figure out. Nuclear power also feels very good for building that wonderful GW base, compared to laying down 9000 acres of solar power or hundreds of coal burners. Combinators are the same in that you don't ever need them to beat the game, but they do create awesome new ways to build your factory. For a game about building factories, both things definitely add to the game.

Any way back to the topic at hand:

There are a ton of unlocks to increase your player speed in Factorio. Cooked brick gives a very nice 30% speed boost for roads and needs no tech. Conveyor belts let you move faster though this is frequently a double edged sword. Cars are a very easy unlock at the green tier, letting you explore the wilderness much faster than on foot. The mid and late game unlock power armor and exosuits, which are a tech that once you get it you can't live without. Finally you have trains which can scream across the map at 300KPH on autopilot, making even the biggest factories manageable. I don't think Factorio suffers from a shortage of effective ways to go fast.

[Dreepa]

But reduce to the max is a game design mantra. What you are talking about is common sense. You should always manage the scope in your project in a way that you focus on the fun parts, and polish them, while dropping the nuisances and annoyances that do not give any extra value to the game play. This is not really something unique about making a game, but the main difference between a good design, and a blown up overhead design.
Having said that, there still however is also an audience for that field. Look at the main Paradox games. E.g. Crusader Kings 2. Or Europa Universalis.
So the first question is always: Who are you making your game for? What is your target audience? Then act within those expectations. "Reduce to the max" or KISS (Keep it simple and smart) or "tiered design" are tools and mantras, but not universally applicable. In the end, the player decides if that management-overhead/grind/repetition/clunky feature you just added is of value or of annoyance. Answering the question "Is it fun" is very subjective. One guy loves looking at excel like GUIs and micro manage the shit out of a feature, others will say "this feels like work, I want to have fun!" and turn away from the game. What is important, is that you decide who you cater to.

Also back to topic:
The speed options were rather meant for exploration. The speed options within your base seem fine to me as well.