0.16 Map generation Feedback

[zOldBulldog]

Yes, well, it is a little strange to ask for a lot of water and then landfill it all. At least I don't think it's something they should increase stone availability to support.

In any case there's always more room if you just explore further.

I did say it was a MISTAKE to ask for more water. I had no idea this would be the effect, I kind of expected large bodies of water, large landmasses and a few connection points between the landmasses.

I might have expected this in a different game, but I totally didn't expect it in a game like factorio that requires so much building space.

Anyway, I learned. I won't ask for any more than DEFAULT water on my next map. But it was a BAD experience, and I don't think the developers are interested in creating bad experiences for their customers, that is how you lose them.

That is why I suggested tying stone generation with water generation... so that people can cope with it without ruining the experience.

Another option would be to make large landmasses and large bodies of water.

A third option would be to remove the option for huge amounts of water... so that unaware people won't shoot themselves in the foot.

[Hedning1390]

If you want to collect the lakes together into more connected water masses you just turn down the frequency. Frequency is the distribution setting. I definitely think frequency should have a larger range though.

What is a bad experience is individual. Some people like to play with lots of water, because it's a barrier that challenges you to build around it. A similar reason for why cliffs were introduced.

[zOldBulldog]

Assuming that doing that solves the problem then the settings page needs far better information.

People are still going to have a bad experience if they are not given the necessary information to make the right choices.

The current information in that screeb is horribly confusing and misleads anyone who has not already played many games and at least in 0.16 it causes bad experiences.

Thinking that since someone with hundreds or thousands of factorio hours of experience can make the right choices then "the experience will be good for everyone" is absurd. Significant improvements are needed so that ANYONE could make choices and produce the results they expect. Until then the only word to describe the map generator is "bad".

[Serenity]

I kind of expected large bodies of water, large landmasses and a few connection points between the landmasses.

And in 0.15 that's what you would have received. But in 0.16 there is less land the farther you go out and even the small landmasses that exist have lakes in them. Take for example the part of the map left of your solar panels. That should be another continent. Instead it's a bit of land cut apart by water. Or the part directly above them. For some reason there is a huge lake in that piece of land.

There is no way to get that style of maps now. If you turn down water too much in hopes of larger continents, you just get a mass of lakes with increasing distance

[Hedning1390]

The current information in that screeb is horribly confusing and misleads anyone who has not already played many games and at least in 0.16 it causes bad experiences..

I don't see what is confusing or misleading. Increasing the water gave you more water. It is different from 0.15, so if you were expecting a 0.15 type map of course it didn't deliver that, but that would only be confusing for someone who played 0.15. A new player or a player who knew the map gen changed won't expect a specific map look, so they won't get confused. All the settings do exactly what they are supposed to. Increasing water size increases the size of each lake. Very straight forward.

[zOldBulldog]

A new player or a player who knew the map gen changed won't expect a specific map look, so they won't get confused.

A new player expects something that goes along with common sense and what they've seen in other similar map-based games they played in the past. A scattering of tiny landmasses in a game that is best played on continuous solid land is NOT what they will expect and their reaction will be "this is <insert your favorite expletive here>!" . That is NOT the reaction anyone wants.

And the thing is, there are many solutions. As Serenity mentions, what people would expect is what 0.15 did (news to me, but good info), so that would be one solution. Another is to make stone a lot more available when there is a lot of water. Yet another solution (a very simple one and probably one that fits what I suspect is the vision of the devs for the long term goals of the game) would be to make landfill creation much cheaper in required stone and faster, so that people can landfill as needed without too much trouble.

All the settings do exactly what they are supposed to. Increasing water size increases the size of each lake. Very straight forward.

Nope, increasing water size does not increase the size of each lake. It increases the number of tiny lakes and landmasses. This map was created with the maximum setting for water size... and those lakes aren't anywhere close to big.

Another important point for players to keep in mind - which is not shown anywhere in the options screen - is that when you choose more water you end up with fewer ore deposits. If you look carefully it is fairly obvious that the map generation algorithm is calculating ore deposits before it figures where the water is, or if it calculates the ore deposits after it does not relocate them if all or part of them end up where water is... resulting in fewer ore fields and in some cases ore fields that are truncated at the water's edge (you can see one of these - copper - just left and below my solar panels although in this screenshot the water has been ladfilled already).

[Hedning1390]

I think it is very obvious that if ore spawns on land and more of the land is underwater you have less ore per area unit. What wouldn't make sense is water somehow washing the ore onto remaining land.

Lets test your theory that size doesn't increase lake size. Let's generate a map with a specific seed (10 in the picture) so we can see what happens when you just change the water level 1 step:
https://i.imgur.com/3rBLIxS.png

Oh, look. Every lake has increased in size. How about that! A few new lakes has popped up, but that is very much to be expected when water levels increase. This is how it works in many games. Take cities skylines. If you increase sea/water level on any map this is exactly the effect you get. The same in reality too. Make a terrain model and then let it rain evenly. Now let it dry a little. This is the effect.

Your only possible valid objection is that increasing the water has too much of an effect. You get too much water from just one step increase. I disagree with this as well. While it would be better to have a slider for more steps the range between maximum and minimum should be as large as possible to accommodate the most amount of players. The default settings are great for the vast majority of players. If players want more water they should expect to get more water. Perhaps some will get a little more than they expect, but they can preview the map before starting, so there's really no excuse.

[zOldBulldog]

Look Hedning, it is clear that we are not going to agree.

You clearly think that map generation is just fine, and I agree... it is, if you have played over 1000 hours of Factorio. You also obviously think that if a new player doesn't have the know-how or experience to fully understand the map settings and they get something that bites them in the rear, we'll that's their problem for not knowing to use default settings.

I think that not every player likes the default settings and that given that map generation settings are so prominently made available for them to change things to what they think they will like, then they should be able to get what they want *even with their limited know-how*. They should be able to look at the screen, make their choices and get pretty much what they were hoping for. Otherwise they will get frustrated from having to start over multiple times (the map preview isn't quite a solution if you need to keep retrying for an hour to get a map you like or if you can't zoom in enough and see what you are really getting). And many of them will quit Factorio before discovering that it is a game they would really like.

So... let's table this discussion as we are derailing the thread, and let others comment.

[Deadlock989]

The default settings are great for the vast majority of players.

Your evidence base for that assertion? This is an 8-page thread, months old, filled with people feeding back who think 0.15 terrain was superior and 0.16 ore generation is whack. I could find you hundreds of quotes from people who've said that RSO is now essential. But the devs know about this full well and they're working on it.

Personally I don't really miss the water/continent kind of map from 0.15 because I typically play with no water at all outside the starting area. I played with giant oceans when I was more of a noob and wanted to limit the number of directions I was being attacked from. But the 0.16 change only reinforced that preference for completely open space, because the current water generation doesn't ever provide interesting topography but only what people call "swamp", but it does interfere with big base building, so it's the worst of both worlds.

[Hedning1390]

@Deadlock989
Resources has been reduced making the game harder in a sense. Of course people will get upset over that. When I started my first 0.16 map I was equally skeptical and made a thread about it on the steam forums. Playing more I have gotten used to it and now like it better. Regardless if you intend to speedrun the "getting on track" achievement or go for a 10k science per second megabase or anything in between you will have no problems at all with the new map gen.

Also when a lot of players start a new game because there's new map gen they may find some outliers. I have seen some pictures here that I can't replicate generating previews over and over for minutes.

0.15 players are no indication at all for what new players think. People in general like what they are used to more than anything new. You can get more of an oceans and continent feel by setting frequency to minimum however of course you can't exactly replicate the old look. Try to make an argument that isn't just apologetics for the old map gen. If the complaint is that the minimum frequency isn't low enough I wholeheartedly agree. Greater ranges to the frequency setting would be awesome.

Yes water is an obstacle. It was like that always. Large solid landmasses exist now as well as then. Check this solid section (found on default settings map): https://i.imgur.com/eSK6QGJ.png

[Deadlock989]

So, no evidence at all then. That's what I thought. It's just another opinion.

[Hedning1390]

I replied to zOldBulldog who said that new players would get frustrated. When I guess what new players would think it should be seen in the context of replying to his statement. However when I consider what new players do and build then the new generation is great for their purpose. That is something I can determine with certainty.

[zOldBulldog]

I replied to zOldBulldog who said that new players would get frustrated. When I guess what new players would think it should be seen in the context of replying to his statement. However when I consider what new players do and build then the new generation is great for their purpose. That is something I can determine with certainty.

Although I quickly accumulated several hundred hours of gameplay, I consider myself a new player. I started with Factorio at the tail end of 0.15. So, when I speak of "new players" it is because I still remember the "fresh to the game" perspective of new players.

I agree that 0.16 is "very pretty" in its map generation. But I can also say that it is very frustrating to those that don't already fully understand how to pick and choose the settings to get what you want. The in-game explanations are pretty terrible, the wiki explanation is not much better, and when you find threads or tutorials on the topic they are mostly vague and incomplete or from the perspective of someone who already understands it all, not something a newcomer would understand. I am somewhat past that, but I can still remember how it was. Trust me, for a new player map generation *is* a royal nightmare. And it doesn't need to be. Simple explanations, a better relationship between words like "rich resources" and reality, or other ways to handle it would do it.

I also agree that you should have the option to choose things as they are now. But the key word is "choose". Shoving something people don't like down their throats just because a few experienced players love it... is bad for business. A game maker has to cater to both audiences.

So saying "the 0.16 generation is great for new players just like it is" is a complete fallacy unless you change some other things.

[Hedning1390]

I agree that "frequency" may be a bad word as it doesn't describe exactly what it does, although finding a better word for it isn't easy. But both size and richness is exactly what you would expect. You thought size didn't affect size, which I proved wrong. Of course that would be confusing and frustrating but it's not the fault of the game creator and not a mistake every new players would make.

The first time you create anything in any game of course you won't be able to pick the settings you like the most. You can't know how much water you want before you know how much of an obstacle it is and exactly how much will be on the map on default settings. This is true for any game setting in any game and was definitely exactly the same in version 0.15 and earlier.

You wanted more of connected land and water? Just turn down frequency. Here is a map made with water frequency on minimum and water to +1:
https://i.imgur.com/8iBr9bD.png

Bautiful! And plenty of large connected landmass to build solar.

[zOldBulldog]

I don't necessarily agree that you proved that size works for water, you did show an example but there are other parameters that interact with it. I will have to play with minimum frequency and maximum richness and size for water to see what comes out... as I seem to remember that is what I picked in the map I showed. But I don't disagree either, I will just have to test.

But, at least for ores I can definitely say that choosing maximum richness and size DO NOT produce decent ore deposits in 0.16. Many of the resulting deposits are pitiful. I do not know what other option is interfering with it, but the results are just bad.

[Hedning1390]

First of all there is no richness for terrain. You either have water or you don't.

Unless you purposefully avoid mining productivity then setting resources to maximum will easily support any size base. Like I said I was skeptical when I noticed the sharp reduction in resources compared to 0.15, however there really isn't any problem at all. Trust me, I have tested.

In 0.15 there was no way to use all the resources if you set it to maximum. Infinite mining productivity wasn't in the game from the start, so it makes sense that with this new infinite research they would reduce the amount of ore available. I like it because railworld on the previous map gen was a farse, because you had so much ore inside your base you didn't really have to build trains going to outposts. If you see people building in 0.15 you notice how they build over ore patches and wont even bother with 40M patches because the 200M patches are plenty enough and lasts forever.

That said I of course would support grater range for size and richness as well. Why not have the maximum setting be infinite? Greater range of choice is of course better. My point is simply that the current settings are enough to do whatever you want.

[J-H]

I set water size to "very big" and something like "moderately frequent" on this playthrough (factory #22).

I think the map generator places resources first, then overlays them with water.... and once overlaid with water, they are gone, and cannot be surfaced by using landfill. There are a bunch of resource patches that (by settings) should be much larger, but are cut into 1/3 or 1/2 by the seas.

Although it's interesting, it also means that I have a pretty hard cap on expansion since most of what I should have access to is flooded.

[zOldBulldog]

I noticed it too. And although some will claim that it is "working as designed" I completely agree with you. It is annoying, detrimental to the game, and I would find it very hard to believe that any developer would do something like this on purpose. It must be a 0.16 unanticipated side effect / oversight. With any luck they will fix it for 0.17.

[Hannu]

I like to play wet worlds, because they give a motivation to build natural long and bending rail lines. I do not see the real problem with resources. There are the same amount of resources and biters per square kilometer of land. You have to just discover more area and build longer railways. There are so many natural barriers for biters that wet map gives significant advantage in defense.
You can choose large starting area and richer or more frequent resources if you feel the game too hard or tedious. But there are far more than enough at normal settings.

[Hedning1390]

I think it makes sense that you get the same amount per unit of land. You don't have to explore, take over and control water, only land.

Like take a look at this map. Some pretty big oceans. What should happen to the ore that tries to spawn in the oceans? Should it find the nearest place to spawn? If so the coasts would be completely covered in ore.
https://i.imgur.com/Hl5wkbV.png