Friday Facts #266 - Cleanup of mechanics

[Avezo]

Should remove few bloasty recipes too and allow crafting final product more directly i.e.
- Iron sticks
- Wooden planks
- Flying robot frames (or use them in combat robots too)

As for assemblers, wouldn't it be easier to remove 3 different types altogether? Then unlock higher speed through research (like labs) and/or module slots. Or instead of increasing speed, encourage usage of modules - remove their higher energy consumption drawback, then you research just additional module slots and achieve higher speed with modules only. And then - even more streamlining - all assemblers, chem plants, refineries etc. would have base crafting speed 1.

[bobucles]

Does the item purge include getting rid of iron chests?

[thelordodin]

That way things can both look and play well without having to bury the experience in overlays. Maybe I'm talking crazy, but an overlay should help enhance the experience rather than being the core essentials.

+1
I remember when I first started playing factorio I really tried many times to turn this overlays off.
But later I just got used to it and dont turn off it anymore.

It really hurts visual experiance and if it is possible - ofcourse it should be done, factory customizations for each product specifically...
But, you know its an easy way to have just this box for the factory, identical for all the product.
It apperad from the first concept "And here I'll craft. I don't have graphics for now, so let's just use a box" and it survived all the time.

But now: is it easy to make a factory model for each specific product? Well no... it's tons and tons of visual design work.

Interesting than Angel mod's author did this job - many special building looks, not just stick assemblers everywhere, - i really like his graphics.
But as I suspect Factorio team have much more coders than visual designers an in fact making that much number of new models is really a challenge for them. Will the accept this challenge when there is so little left to 1.00 release? - no way! Pity. But realistic.

[Avezo]

The ability to equip mk 2 power armor is one of the best individual feelings of accomplishment in the game, because of all the power and options that come with it. If it just automatically has its effect the instant you research the tech, the feeling of reward won't be as visceral. The ability to kit it out with different setups is also incredibly satisfying. If you have multiple suits of armor you can have them set up for different purposes - for example I usually have three sets: one for max walking speed, one for max construction bots, and one for combat.

I find the choices they made about the different sizes of equipment and the armor's capacity very good and rewarding.

MK2 armor (all armors actually) could be replaced with vehicle with a equipment grid - I suggested some time ago a 'mech vehicle' and for all purposes it would act as an armor and box in the corner could be removed. Weapons could be equipped in a grid too.

[badtouchatr]

Regarding the pickaxe removal: I haven't seen someone state this yet, so I *may* be in the minority, but -- the main issue I have with it being removed is that it's not very realistic to mine ore from the ground with your HANDS. So it seems some sort of initial, craftable mining tool is necessary.

But then I think of how much else is not very realistic in factorio. The big one that comes to mind is that the character (who has landed on an alien world) never needs food, water, or shelter. So considering that, and if you overlook it, the pickaxe removal seems totally ok. ::giggle::

[5thHorseman]

I'm actually down with all of these changes with the exception of the slot limits in assemblers. To me, those limits are actually the thing that defines the differences between the assemblers. Time is important, but flat out not being able to craft something because it's too complex is exactly the kind of limit I expect on a simple machine.

And while I like (or at least am okay with) all the other changes I don't see why the removed mechanics need to be REMOVED and can't just be zeroed out and hidden. Instead of removing hardness, set it to 0 or 1 or 100% or whatever, and then hide it from the player. Then give modders the option to change it and unhide it as a stat.

[CaveGrinder]

from a modding and player perspective i am glad to see the ingredient limit gone; it made no sense.
the recipe '1 stick + 1 stone + 1 steel -> 2 rails'
somehow is 'too complex for mk1', while
'250 processing units -> 1 protable fusion reactor'
is totally fine.
The already existing recipe categories are much better suited for this. also the normal progression isn't really changing.
It seems to be forgotten that engine units fall under the 'advanced crafting' category.
so now we can craft red&green science with mk1, but for blue science ingredients the upgrade to mk2 is needed anyway.
If anything i would say the base game doesn't use it's own categories enough and maybe needs a cleanup (hand-crafting nukes?).

from a modding perspective the ingredient limit made it harder to write rebalancing mods; tweaking/adding more ingredients to a
recipe could easily result in a broken state where the player would be unable to progress.


i don't mind the resistance cleanup as long as it stays mod-able. to me it seems cleaner if a mod author who adds custom biters or
turrets also defines how entity resistances to those are distributed.


also the hardness removal seems fine. as mentioned we can still create a mining drill with another category for diamond drill blades / laser drilling or whatever.
although i don't really see the point of this change; in ~1k hours i never tried calculating the required miners
as the continuously shrinking fields make that number incorrect soon. so a new player who places exactly x drills now will be surprised later.

and lastly, nope i don't need an axe just so the first 30 seconds of playing seem familiar.

[Tias]

When I read the post, I already though, oh this will make Lazy Bastard easier when you anounced the removal of the pickaxes. That alone would've sped up the early game.

[Rythe]

Now to answer the question: Why not just assign a tech tier to all crafting recipes and limit Assembling Machines by tech tier?

Because this isn't a bad idea and would be a reasonable fix. Except...

Factorio production buildings are a lot defined by their inputs. Chem plants and refineries accept fluid connections. Assembling Machine 1-3 were primarily separated out by input limits. That was the original rhyme and reason of the game in this area, blurred slightly by rocket pad being defined by what it could produce. Smelters started a little blurred to, but are still basically a lot about accepting energy and a smeltable item to produce a refined item.

This might not have been an ideal setup in some ways - defining production buildings by what they'll take in as much as what they produce - but it was an interesting setup that helped create the puzzle aspect of factory line creation.

And that's what you'll lose by locking AMs to a tech tier rather than input limit - the visual/mechanical representation of why the Assembling Machine 1 can't produce the things that the mark 3 version can, and the visual/mechanical representation of production line/puzzle complexity built into the input limits of the AMs.

[FortressSideDK]

I think that removing pickaxes is a good decision, usually i end up making 20 steel pickaxes and then not caring about them. Later in the game while working on something i suddenly run out of pickaxes and have to take my mind off whatever i was doing in order to go get more pickaxes.
I feel like having mining speed tied to research, instead of an item is overall a good thing.

About the changes to the UI regarding miners, is also a great thing.

[Voxera]

Getting my unread two cents in here. I feel like if the goal is to simplify a little than assembler 1 should have 3 ingredients. Now you can suddenly automate assembler 1s, inserters and splitters. Without being able to automate slightly less necessary in early game assembler 2s, steam engines, and fast inserters.

Get my +1, I definitely think there should be some limit on what can be crafted in the assemblers, and upping AM1 to 3 opens up a lot of the beginning recepies while still forcing you to go to AM2 for fluids and higher recipes.

[MisterDoctor]

I liked everything up till the assembling machine slots. This will lose the feeling of the three machines being of vastly different tiers. It might be ok, I guess, if you were considering having earlier recipes that used 3 or 4 ingredients. And maybe if you had other ideas for how to maintain such a meaningful distinction between the three buildings. Maybe...

But really, I don't think so. You said something like the number of ingredients has nothing to do with the complexity of the item? But yes, it definitely does. 2 ingredient items are relatively simple, and 3 and 4 are significantly more complex for the player to put together, and especially still when those inputs are themselves other intermediate items (red circuits). If you aren't considering this fact when designing recipes, you should be.

The change would turn the assembling machines from actually mechanically different buildings, into just slow, medium, and fast versions of the same building. That is surely a step down in interesting complexity. Unlike the other things mentioned, this is not superficial at all and just makes things more mechanically interesting. You should be looking for this kind of mechanical difference in other parts of the game instead. Not necessarily as a limitation (people may not want to be forced to use blue belts), but it would be great if, only for example, belts had some other kind of mechanical difference besides just speed. Or if ammo (ie: the 3 different kinds of machine gun clip) had some kind of mechanical difference besides just damage. etc.

[Voxera]

One thought regarding Assembly machines.

If the problem is that there is no explanation for item limit, why not add a very simple solution.

When you select Item to craft, show all craftable items but grey out those that the current machine cannot craft with a tooltip explaining,

"This recipe requires 3 ingredients and the basic assembly machine can only handle 2. You need AM2 or better for this recipe"

Similarly, any item requiring liquid will have another tooltip stating,

"The recipe require a liquid ingredient and the AM1 cannot handle liquids, you need AM2 or AM3 for that."


Personally I actually never had a problem understanding the ingredient limit, but I did on occasion search frantically for a recipe wondering why I could not see it until I realized I was using an older AM1. Or in the very beginning, I did not remember the number of ingredients so not seeing the recipe gave very little clue to the problem.

Showing the items with a clear "disabled" state and a tooltip helps the new player to understand the game mechanic in an easy way, when he needs it

[TheRaph]

Assembling machine ingredient limit removal

I like it, that the later Assembling machines can do really more than the earlier ones. The game forces me to create them and thus directs me and guides me. The goal to just speed up things might not always be enough:
I can automatically produce items of type X: Yeah!
I can create items of type X faster: ok.

Exactly.

Higher tier assembly machines that can make new things add more to the game than mere speedups.

+1

Also I do not agree with the statement that the needed assembler depends on number of ingredients instead of complexity of a recipe.

I think it heavily depends on the definition of complexity. Higher tier don't necessarily mean also higher complexity.

An example from real life:
Did you ever have dismantled a VHS player? And did you have done the same with DVD player?
What has higher tier and what has more complexity?
To build a VHS player you have to build a spinning head in an exact angle. Than you have to do mechanics for inserting and ejecting the cartridge. The mechanic parts for flipping out the tape and position it precisely next to spinning head are awesome. And than you have to handle an analog signal, where every fault will directly influence the quality of picture.
A DVD player in comparison is just an automatic drawer, with an electric engine for speed up the disk. The then there are some laser diodes and lenses... Boring. And a digital signal does not loose any information, as long as you can determine what is an 1 and what's a 0.

So VHS seems to be more complicated than DVD, but they had to do more research to build the latter one.

The same in factorio: it is a good reason to have different tiers of assembler for having different numbers of ingredients.
It's real, that you need more input slots for more ingredients, and that the assembler might have a more complex control system and mechanics internally to handle that extra slots.

As I have started as new player, it was no big deal for me, to learn why I need to research for higher tiered assemblers.
And for yust being a little bit more faster, yellow assemblers are to expensive.

[Reika]

Chiming in again to state how simultaneously re-encouraged and disheartened I am by some of the replies.

It is pleasing and reassuring to see that many players, including both mod developers and "standard" players, do not wish to see mechanics - especially on the level of the game engine itself to preclude modding - removed.

However, it makes me very unhappy to see people not only cheering it on, but going multiple steps further and listing more features they want removed, such as fluid temperature, evolution factor, basic/advanced oil processing, and even the new 0.15 science packs. Or saying things like "it's finally time for the game to move past the hindrance of the old playerbase". Or dismissing those who want complexity with - unsubstantiated - statements like that they are only a small percentage of the player base or that they "just hate change".

I will echo what several people have hinted at or outright said - making the game simpler is not an inherently good thing, especially for a game like Factorio, where the whole game is built on the idea of solving a sort of puzzle. Just because you may increase the general appeal of the game by some - probably not very large - amount is NOT a good reason to start alienating the existing playerbase by going back on what makes the game both appealing and unique.

The idea of "simpler = popular = better" is what has all but ruined the modded Minecraft community as mods started trying to out-simplify (and then, as they were no longer able to distinguish themselves on their mechanics, out-numbers-race) each other and the playerbase started to grow more and more demanding of such simplicity, and increasingly hostile to what they derisively call "the old guard" of having to actually design solutions.

Please do not start Factorio down that path in the search for "easier new player experience".

[Nickjet45]

Chiming in again to state how simultaneously re-encouraged and disheartened I am by some of the replies.

It is pleasing and reassuring to see that many players, including both mod developers and "standard" players, do not wish to see mechanics - especially on the level of the game engine itself to preclude modding - removed.

However, it makes me very unhappy to see people not only cheering it on, but going multiple steps further and listing more features they want removed, such as fluid temperature, evolution factor, basic/advanced oil processing, and even the new 0.15 science packs. Or saying things like "it's finally time for the game to move past the hindrance of the old playerbase". Or dismissing those who want complexity with - unsubstantiated - statements like that they are only a small percentage of the player base or that they "just hate change".

I will echo what several people have hinted at or outright said - making the game simpler is not an inherently good thing, especially for a game like Factorio, where the whole game is built on the idea of solving a sort of puzzle. Just because you may increase the general appeal of the game by some - probably not very large - amount is NOT a good reason to start alienating the existing playerbase by going back on what makes the game both appealing and unique.

The idea of "simpler = popular = better" is what has all but ruined the modded Minecraft community as mods started trying to out-simplify (and then, as they were no longer able to distinguish themselves on their mechanics, out-numbers-race) each other and the playerbase started to grow more and more demanding of such simplicity, and increasingly hostile to what they derisively call "the old guard" of having to actually design solutions.

Please do not start Factorio down that path in the search for "easier new player experience".

+1 Someone finally said it

The vast majority of us, older players atleast, bought Factorio knowing, or not, the amount of math and complexity behind it

When you scroll through Steam reviews and see Cracktorio it’s almost always followed by why the game is addicting, the complexity and that Factorio formula.

Seeing all these features that makes me turn to Factorio over other games on a daily basis is disheartening.

Can only hope the devs backtrack and decide not to change these features

[Rythe]

Chiming in again to state how simultaneously re-encouraged and disheartened I am by some of the replies.

It is pleasing and reassuring to see that many players, including both mod developers and "standard" players, do not wish to see mechanics - especially on the level of the game engine itself to preclude modding - removed.

However, it makes me very unhappy to see people not only cheering it on, but going multiple steps further and listing more features they want removed, such as fluid temperature, evolution factor, basic/advanced oil processing, and even the new 0.15 science packs. Or saying things like "it's finally time for the game to move past the hindrance of the old playerbase". Or dismissing those who want complexity with - unsubstantiated - statements like that they are only a small percentage of the player base or that they "just hate change".

I will echo what several people have hinted at or outright said - making the game simpler is not an inherently good thing, especially for a game like Factorio, where the whole game is built on the idea of solving a sort of puzzle. Just because you may increase the general appeal of the game by some - probably not very large - amount is NOT a good reason to start alienating the existing playerbase by going back on what makes the game both appealing and unique.

The idea of "simpler = popular = better" is what has all but ruined the modded Minecraft community as mods started trying to out-simplify (and then, as they were no longer able to distinguish themselves on their mechanics, out-numbers-race) each other and the playerbase started to grow more and more demanding of such simplicity, and increasingly hostile to what they derisively call "the old guard" of having to actually design solutions.

Please do not start Factorio down that path in the search for "easier new player experience".

+1 Someone finally said it

The vast majority of us, older players atleast, bought Factorio knowing, or not, the amount of math and complexity behind it

When you scroll through Steam reviews and see Cracktorio it’s almost always followed by why the game is addicting, the complexity and that Factorio formula.

Seeing all these features that makes me turn to Factorio over other games on a daily basis is disheartening.

Can only hope the devs backtrack and decide not to change these features

And now I've an excuse to talk about this.

Factorio is a hybrid puzzle/power fantasy game. The puzzle lies in the math, limitations of various things like AM ingredient limits, and the reward for creating and solving puzzles of your own within the tools and limitations supplied by the game (like an in-game video decoder). The power fantasy is building the biggest factory with the best numbers the fastest.

This hybrid nature has split the player base, and the easiest tell between the two is how they see bots fitting into the game. A power fantasy type sees anything that slows down their arrival at the bots as a bad feature because, for them, the game doesn't start until bots are unlocked. So mining axes and ingredient limits in AMs are pointless because they don't matter to bot play or hinder bot play which hampers the power fantasy. To them, a good change is any change that makes it easier for the numbers to go up faster.

Conversely, the puzzle types see removing calc details and simplifying features as bad because it dumbs down the puzzle complexity and opportunities, usually. To them, any change that removes logical/puzzle type barriers to reward is bad. Which usually means they want to make it harder for the numbers to go up faster, but again, based on puzzle mechanics. Simple drudgery for the sake of drudgery sucks to them too.

But you can see that these two types are basically opposed to each other, and most of the drama regarding feature changes is split down these two player bases wanting the game to cater to them more at the expense of the other. The changes in this FF is a gift to the power types at the expense of the puzzle types.

(And the exploratory/experience types are just thankful for any crumbs that land their way, and the limited mining axe progression/initial manual mining is a part of their play)

And from this FF, I've gotten the vague sense that maybe Wube just wants the game to be done at this point, particularly for Kovarex, who might be hitting project burnout and needing a long deserved vacation before moving onto something new. I think Kovarex is normally better than this when it comes to understanding his game, but a chunk of the rational for getting rid of mining axes was literally "Our UI is so flawed that some people are trying to mine by picking up the mining axe from the inventory slot and clicking on the ground with it attached, so let's get rid of mining axes."

That makes no sense, but it is what you get when you start rationalizing the easiest/quickest solution to think up when running into these end-project issues.

[mrudat]

I can see not wanting to remove complexity, as complexity is part of the fun; that said, (Edit:) for new players, I think it would be better to have explicit complexity; ie. complexity explained to the player in tooltips, rather than complexity that's discovered by "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that". Edit: see Principle of least astonishment.

On that note, I think removing the ingredient restrictions on assembling machines, and instead, having category based restrictions is good; it makes it explicit what you can't do, and why, (Edit:) before you try and fail.

If the category restrictions mirror or nor the existing ingredient based restrictions is an entirely different question. Edit: Personally, I think that it's annoying that you can't completely automate science packs 1 + 2 using Automation 1. I almost always go straight for Automation 2, from the point of view of automating all available science as soon as it is feasible to do so.

I agree with removing mining hardness from the tooltips; it's not a number that's easy to calculate with. Perhaps instead report items/s with the most powerful drill the player is carrying?

Edit: formatting

[kisss256]

This is the first FFF I've thoroughly disagreed with.

Please don't simplify.

Complexity is what makes factorio what it is: a constant balance between build time, optimality/efficiency, and scalability. New players shouldn't be able to think for 2 minutes and work out the perfect factory design.
I am not advocating unnecessary obfuscation, the UI should help the user as much as possible through a difficult task. Don't remove complexity from the task to simplify the UI.

• Don't make the mining speeds constant, make them vary more. Make all minerals slightly different, you can succinctly show the user the rate after they've placed it (with a "varies" note before they place it).

• I never played with the original furnace mechanics, but that sounds perfectly factorio to me. Doesn't make a big difference until you want to squeeze the maximum efficiency out of your system.

• Efficiency of a boiler is not too much to understand, out = in * eff. But more important still, it highlights the benefit of more efficient technologies.

• Ever since I realised there were different types of damage/resistances, I've been waiting to see their use in various turrets and advanced biters. Don't show it if its not relevant, but I'd prefer it was made relevant.

• Assembling machine limits are just another little thing that has to be considered to make a functioning factory, all of the "little things" add and and this is what makes factorio a diverse and complex environment.

Please don't simplify the game, its emergent complexity is what makes it great.

[Lubricus]

I can see not wanting to remove complexity, as complexity is part of the fun; that said, (Edit:) for new players, I think it would be better to have explicit complexity; ie. complexity explained to the player in tooltips, rather than complexity that's discovered by "I'm sorry Dave, I can't do that". Edit: see Principle of least astonishment.

I disagree for production software Principle of least astonishment is a good design rule, for games on the other hand I wan't to explore and test different stuff and what is so wonderful about Factorio is that I can continue to find/discover small quirks, mechanics and optimizations after several years...
Reading and design from that is more like work. Try and err and discover on my own is fun gameplay.