Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Regular reports on Factorio development.
vanatteveldt
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 877
Joined: Wed Nov 25, 2015 11:44 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by vanatteveldt » Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:09 am

Avezo wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:19 pm
There is something I didn't notice before - with huge push for steel instead of iron plates in new recipes, a great UPS gains come. Not sure if it was intended, but that direction seems right.

Now, find a way to reduce copper wire 'movement' in prodction chain too, they have the largest movement volume - I'm talking about this: https://i.redd.it/lr7gbpixh3h11.png
cool graph, thanks!

Avezo
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 439
Joined: Fri Apr 01, 2016 3:53 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by Avezo » Fri Jan 25, 2019 8:27 am

vanatteveldt wrote:
Fri Jan 25, 2019 7:09 am
Avezo wrote:
Thu Jan 24, 2019 11:19 pm
There is something I didn't notice before - with huge push for steel instead of iron plates in new recipes, a great UPS gains come. Not sure if it was intended, but that direction seems right.

Now, find a way to reduce copper wire 'movement' in prodction chain too, they have the largest movement volume - I'm talking about this: https://i.redd.it/lr7gbpixh3h11.png
cool graph, thanks!
It's about to become obsolete though :) I hope original author makes new one for 0.17.

McDuff
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 177
Joined: Sun Jan 11, 2015 11:09 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by McDuff » Thu Jan 31, 2019 1:53 pm

Beil wrote:
Tue Jan 15, 2019 12:11 pm
I have to mention that I agree with many others here, overall the new science looks great with the one exception of rails. The issue I have with rails is not the number but the weird use of unrefined stone ore so late. It is very weird and out of place. Every other raw resource gets processed before use, heck even the stone itself does for mass produced items. Thus shoving belts of raw stone down the factory for one late game science is just wrong. I would rather see rails use brick or concrete. You might think that out of place but railroads use concrete for ties in many places.
It shouldn't be a huge issue to change the rail recipe to stone brick rather than raw stone, should it? And then that would make a lot of things much easier to lay out.

coderpatsy
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 40
Joined: Tue Apr 17, 2018 11:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by coderpatsy » Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:55 pm

I always thought the raw stone is the track ballast. That's not to say they can't still change the recipe if game balance warrants trumping realism, just what I assumed their reasoning was.

astroshak
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 67
Joined: Thu May 10, 2018 9:59 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by astroshak » Fri Feb 01, 2019 12:50 am

You look at a rail track IRL, it generally has a bed of gravel, upon which sit the railroad ties, and the tracks sit atop the ties. So having them be stone and steel makes a certain amount of sense, moreso than stone brick and steel. Though I’m glad there’s no wood requirement ...

Something that’s been bugging me lately though, is the need for iron ore in concrete. Refined concrete needing the iron rods makes sense - that’s rebar yo. But regular concrete? Should be stone, stone brick, and water, IMO. That more closely matches real world concrete.

Beil
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 6
Joined: Sat Mar 18, 2017 4:29 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by Beil » Fri Feb 01, 2019 6:16 pm

coderpatsy wrote:
Thu Jan 31, 2019 4:55 pm
I always thought the raw stone is the track ballast. That's not to say they can't still change the recipe if game balance warrants trumping realism, just what I assumed their reasoning was.
Yes they have the stone there to represent ballast, which is generally used but not always. The Ties that hold a rail in place are much more important though and I am not saying it is a perfect representation just that it makes more sense to the production design of Factorio mid to late game while still being based in reality.

bripi
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 27
Joined: Sat Jul 02, 2016 3:15 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by bripi » Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:16 am

Panderturtle wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:37 pm
24 seconds for "chemical science pack"s are too much. Considering you get 3 out of "Production science pack"s and "Utility science pack"s and both only take 21 seconds. I think you should reduce it at least by 4 seconds, but it's only my opinion.
100% behind this post. 24 ticks for chemical science is *massively* unbalanced from the perspective of game growth. That means 24 assemblers for ONLY 1/s, which is ridiculous. The devs really should cut this back.

Zavian
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1354
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:57 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by Zavian » Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:08 am

bripi wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:16 am
Panderturtle wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:37 pm
24 seconds for "chemical science pack"s are too much. Considering you get 3 out of "Production science pack"s and "Utility science pack"s and both only take 21 seconds. I think you should reduce it at least by 4 seconds, but it's only my opinion.
100% behind this post. 24 ticks for chemical science is *massively* unbalanced from the perspective of game growth. That means 24 assemblers for ONLY 1/s, which is ridiculous. The devs really should cut this back.
Well the recipe makes 2 per cycle, so that would be 12 assemblers. ie roughly equal to your red science assemblers + green science assemblers. Note that I consider red and green science to be sort of tutorial recipes, fairly simple and easy, to help new players learn the game.

Pretty sure one of the devs has suggested that they are considering reducing the time, which would reduce the number of assemblers.

But the real increase between green science and blue science is is not the number of science assemblers required, but all the infrastructure needed to produce engines, and red circuits to feed the science assemblers. (eg assuming no changes, you need 18 red circuit assemblers to feed those 12 science assemblers).

RocketManChronicles
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by RocketManChronicles » Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:29 pm

Zavian wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:08 am
bripi wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:16 am
Panderturtle wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:37 pm
24 seconds for "chemical science pack"s are too much. Considering you get 3 out of "Production science pack"s and "Utility science pack"s and both only take 21 seconds. I think you should reduce it at least by 4 seconds, but it's only my opinion.
100% behind this post. 24 ticks for chemical science is *massively* unbalanced from the perspective of game growth. That means 24 assemblers for ONLY 1/s, which is ridiculous. The devs really should cut this back.
Well the recipe makes 2 per cycle, so that would be 12 assemblers. ie roughly equal to your red science assemblers + green science assemblers. Note that I consider red and green science to be sort of tutorial recipes, fairly simple and easy, to help new players learn the game.

Pretty sure one of the devs has suggested that they are considering reducing the time, which would reduce the number of assemblers.

But the real increase between green science and blue science is is not the number of science assemblers required, but all the infrastructure needed to produce engines, and red circuits to feed the science assemblers. (eg assuming no changes, you need 18 red circuit assemblers to feed those 12 science assemblers).
And how does this differ from 0.16 blue science setups? You already have 12 assemblers to produce 1 blue science per second. No change there. The recipes are simpler from the refinery, which means you will not build up light oil while consuming petroleum gas. We get the same production but with fewer consumed iron and copper. And where do you get 18 red circuit assemblers? You only need 6.

Why is this a problem?

lordaeron1
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 22
Joined: Mon Sep 17, 2018 10:42 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by lordaeron1 » Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:29 pm

Nova wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:06 pm
PRAISE THE SCIENCE!

And yes to science pack names. I prefer them over numbers. :)
Also yes to the merged military research. The system sounds better than the momentary.
Don't praise the science, Praise the Sun! \(^_^)/

Zavian
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1354
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2017 2:57 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by Zavian » Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:15 am

RocketManChronicles wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:29 pm
Zavian wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 9:08 am
bripi wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 8:16 am
Panderturtle wrote:
Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:37 pm
24 seconds for "chemical science pack"s are too much. Considering you get 3 out of "Production science pack"s and "Utility science pack"s and both only take 21 seconds. I think you should reduce it at least by 4 seconds, but it's only my opinion.
100% behind this post. 24 ticks for chemical science is *massively* unbalanced from the perspective of game growth. That means 24 assemblers for ONLY 1/s, which is ridiculous. The devs really should cut this back.
Well the recipe makes 2 per cycle, so that would be 12 assemblers. ie roughly equal to your red science assemblers + green science assemblers. Note that I consider red and green science to be sort of tutorial recipes, fairly simple and easy, to help new players learn the game.

Pretty sure one of the devs has suggested that they are considering reducing the time, which would reduce the number of assemblers.

But the real increase between green science and blue science is is not the number of science assemblers required, but all the infrastructure needed to produce engines, and red circuits to feed the science assemblers. (eg assuming no changes, you need 18 red circuit assemblers to feed those 12 science assemblers).
And how does this differ from 0.16 blue science setups? You already have 12 assemblers to produce 1 blue science per second. No change there. The recipes are simpler from the refinery, which means you will not build up light oil while consuming petroleum gas. We get the same production but with fewer consumed iron and copper. And where do you get 18 red circuit assemblers? You only need 6.
The new recipe needs 3 red circuits per cycle. But despite mentioning in my post that the recipe makes 2 flasks per cycle, I forgot that when calculating the number of red circuit factories. So 1.5 red circuits per blue science flask, which means 9 red circuit assemblers to support 12 blue science assemblers.
RocketManChronicles wrote:
Thu Feb 07, 2019 12:29 pm
Why is this a problem?
I don't feel that those numbers are a problem (for experienced players), and I wasn't meaning to suggest that they are.

I was responding to people saying that the number of blue science assemblers needed was excessive, by pointing out that you need to build a lot of other stuff to support blue science, and that the number of actual blue science assemblers is relatively small compared to the amount of additional iron and copper mining and smelting, green circuit assemblers, plastic, steel, red circuit and engine assemblers.

However the sheer amount of stuff you need to build probably does contribute to at least some new players quitting before they finish blue science. The cause probably isn't only oil and getting the refinery running, part of it is probably the fact that you need to triple or quadruple your factory to get blue science running in reasonable quantities. It is a big step from a tiny factory that can barely support 5 red + 6 green science assemblers to something that can also feed 12 blue science assemblers.

RocketManChronicles
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by RocketManChronicles » Fri Feb 08, 2019 1:40 pm

Zavian wrote:
Fri Feb 08, 2019 10:15 am
I don't feel that those numbers are a problem (for experienced players), and I wasn't meaning to suggest that they are.

I was responding to people saying that the number of blue science assemblers needed was excessive, by pointing out that you need to build a lot of other stuff to support blue science, and that the number of actual blue science assemblers is relatively small compared to the amount of additional iron and copper mining and smelting, green circuit assemblers, plastic, steel, red circuit and engine assemblers.

However the sheer amount of stuff you need to build probably does contribute to at least some new players quitting before they finish blue science. The cause probably isn't only oil and getting the refinery running, part of it is probably the fact that you need to triple or quadruple your factory to get blue science running in reasonable quantities. It is a big step from a tiny factory that can barely support 5 red + 6 green science assemblers to something that can also feed 12 blue science assemblers.
You have a point here. I have traversed this stage of the game many times that it is second nature. That getting blue science up and running is not hard to me. But even going from 6 assemblers making red circuits to 9 assemblers is not all that bad. But now thinking about it, you have one assembler making 2 blue science for 24 seconds only requiring 3 red circuits, whereas now you have 2 assemblers to make one blue science each requiring 2 red circuits. So, in fact, you use LESS red circuits than you do now, which is a 25% decrease!!

And like I pointed out, you still keep 12 assemblers for blue science, which is nothing added. In fact, having solid fuel instead of the mining drills makes this recipe much easier to setup, as the mining drills required a lot of assemblers for green circuits and gears. Now, you only need a small number of chemical plants converting light oil into solid fuel.

grumd
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by grumd » Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:31 pm

Hey! Sorry if this was posted before.
I noticed in this FFF that tanks are going to lose their 100% bonus to machinegun damage. This seems to be a rather bad decision imo.
Tank shells require oil processing, and in my first game biters became too strong for car's machinegun way earlier than I was able to finish oil processing.
This change will make biters way too strong before you do the oil stuff. And what if the nearest oil source is protected by some biter base? It would be pretty hard to clear them and start doing oil.
I think tanks should have the bonus, but maybe just not 100% but 50% or something around that.

User avatar
Oktokolo
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by Oktokolo » Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:09 am

grumd wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:31 pm
Tank shells require oil processing, and in my first game biters became too strong for car's machinegun way earlier than I was able to finish oil processing.
Try default settings first before landing on a deathworld. Or just rush bullet upgrades.

Going in on foot with just a submachine gun works quite well for wiping small and medium bases until behemoths emerge. Always be ahead with the bullet upgrades (damage is better than speed, because inventory and production are limited) and go for piercing ASAP.
For bigger bases, have some backup turrets to retreat to when the biter tail grows too long.

Eventually you should get depleted uranium bullets and nukes of course. But, while the car might be nice to have in the time frame between its availability and the availability of tanks, it or its submachinegun's cheaty damage bonus are never really needed.

And as a last resoprt if the biters really are too much to handle, you could still resort to using the turret creep easy mode...

grumd
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 8
Joined: Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:24 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by grumd » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:20 pm

Oktokolo wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:09 am
grumd wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:31 pm
Tank shells require oil processing, and in my first game biters became too strong for car's machinegun way earlier than I was able to finish oil processing.
Try default settings first before landing on a deathworld. Or just rush bullet upgrades.
I'm pretty sure I started my game on default settings. Also I did rush bullet upgrades. I have played this map for 30-35 hours though, and just now finished the oil processing completely. But I think I already had solar and some plastic way earlier - I just couldn't continue with it and make tank bullets because I got my oil deadlocked.

RocketManChronicles
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 232
Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:38 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by RocketManChronicles » Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:34 pm

grumd wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:20 pm
Oktokolo wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:09 am
grumd wrote:
Tue Feb 12, 2019 1:31 pm
Tank shells require oil processing, and in my first game biters became too strong for car's machinegun way earlier than I was able to finish oil processing.
Try default settings first before landing on a deathworld. Or just rush bullet upgrades.
I'm pretty sure I started my game on default settings. Also I did rush bullet upgrades. I have played this map for 30-35 hours though, and just now finished the oil processing completely. But I think I already had solar and some plastic way earlier - I just couldn't continue with it and make tank bullets because I got my oil deadlocked.
I understand where you are coming from. The best you have before tank ammo is the combination of armor piercing rounds and grenades. Grenades are amazing with one or two levels of damage upgrades, as they can wipe all small and medium biters in one boom. Grenades are also pretty good against nests and worms, lobbing 2 or 3 before running away can do quite a bit of damage, even against large worms.

Now, the 2,000-hour me wants to help you with speeding up your production in your next start. I am no speed-runner at all, nor do I try to be, but I can get oil processing up at about the three or four hour mark, slower starts will be around 10 hours. I remember my first few games (I still have the save files lol), it took me a bit to understand oil processing, but I was able to bring it to within 15 hours to get it going by my 5th or 6th game. What is working against you is the time and the pollution factors that the biters evolve. Honestly, losing the 100% bonus is needed as the tank just melts everything too easily with its gun. The car's gun is still good, you just cannot let the biters catch up to you. Also, you can lob grenades from the vehicles. I enjoy running around in the car loaded with a few stacks of AP ammo and a stack of grenades, and just tear through nests. This is a very viable option, as the large biters and spitters cannot catch you.

User avatar
Oktokolo
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by Oktokolo » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:04 pm

grumd wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:20 pm
Oktokolo wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 3:09 am
Try default settings first before landing on a deathworld. Or just rush bullet upgrades.
I'm pretty sure I started my game on default settings. Also I did rush bullet upgrades. I have played this map for 30-35 hours though, and just now finished the oil processing completely. But I think I already had solar and some plastic way earlier - I just couldn't continue with it and make tank bullets because I got my oil deadlocked.
With rushing bullet upgrades i meant to actually rush bullet upgrades. If you can't upgrade because of tech requirements, get the missing tech and continue upgrading. So get the oil done when you need it for the next upgrade.
How long it takes you to get there should not matter as low productivity most of the time means low pollution leading to low evolution. Even if your factory is idling around a lot you should still be faster than time-based evolution.
But if you like going massive smelting collumn arrays (meaning massive pollution) early on, while preferring a more chilly game pace, you could always start a game with slightly reduced evolution settings so biters do not grow up on pollution that fast.

Tank bullets (cannon shells) are normally not worth using directly. They are only good as an intermediate used in artillery shell production - wich might become relevant near the endgame (but nukes have proven to be a much more satisfying option for cleaning the red carpets of the lategame). The tank is perfectly suited for bulldozing small and medium bases though.

User avatar
Oktokolo
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 490
Joined: Wed Jul 12, 2017 5:45 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by Oktokolo » Wed Feb 13, 2019 9:22 pm

RocketManChronicles wrote:
Wed Feb 13, 2019 12:34 pm
The best you have before tank ammo is the combination of armor piercing rounds and grenades. Grenades are amazing with one or two levels of damage upgrades, as they can wipe all small and medium biters in one boom. Grenades are also pretty good against nests and worms, lobbing 2 or 3 before running away can do quite a bit of damage, even against large worms.
Just spam fish and mow down the worms with your trusty submachinegun. No need to use tree removers in combat. ;)

Hiladdar
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 63
Joined: Mon May 14, 2018 6:47 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by Hiladdar » Thu Feb 14, 2019 1:59 am

One of the things I noticed on my play through was the amount of lube needed, especially in the production of electric engines used to make flying robot frames. Getting to the first launch of the rocket this is not an issue, but in the construction of the mega base it is, particularity when high technology science is scaled up beyond the 1k per second range.

I have several possible recommendations for considerations.

1. Lower the amount of lube needed to produce electric engines.

2. Produce more lube from heavy oil.

3. Allow for some other way to produce lube, maybe from light oil or petroleum. These alternate ways should not be as optimal as converting heavy oil into lube.

Hiladdar

User avatar
Nova
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 916
Joined: Mon Mar 04, 2013 12:13 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #275 - 0.17 Science changes

Post by Nova » Thu Feb 14, 2019 2:03 am

You just have to revert some refineries from advanced oil processing back to basic oil processing. This will raise the amount of heavy oil significantly.
Greetings, Nova.
Factorio is one of the greatest games I ever played, with one of the best developers I ever heard of. Image

Post Reply

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot] and 9 guests