I see your point. Which is not bad either, as it keeps some things in the game. My point was exaggerated to kind of point out how close we are to not having either LO or HO. They are used in only a small number of things now, not far from total elimination and we have only Petroleum Gas left. If you change Rocket Fuel back to only accept Solid Fuel, there is no need for Light Oil. You eliminate Lubricant and make items not require it (Express Belts and Electric Engines), then there is no need for Heavy Oil.bobingabout wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 2:45 pmYou'd still have lubricant, you'd just make it from Light oil instead of heavy. or vica verca, if you only had heavy oil, you'd make solid/rocket fuel from heavy instead of light. Heck, they only added light oil to rocket fuel to give it something to do, otherwise it would have been completely pointless. (I'm not forgetting the solid fuel efficiency from light oil, but, that by itself isn't reason enough for it to exist, which is why it was added to the rocket fuel recipe to give it something to do)RocketManChronicles wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 2:17 pmI thought about this a little more. If they go to one oil, let's just say Light Oil, then this leads down a scary path, one that takes me to the "Bots vs Belts" fiasco last year... No Heavy Oil? No Lubricant. Change the recipe of the Express Belts to no longer require Lubricant. And now, no Bots. The game now becomes more "Factorio" as it is only Transport Belts, just like the Devs desired a year ago.bobingabout wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 12:57 pmWhich leaves me with a big question actually... what is even the point in having heavy oil AND light oil? both are useful for exactly one thing each, and both become available at the same time. Why not just combine them into a single refined oil?
Scary thoughts....
Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
-
- Filter Inserter
- Posts: 361
- Joined: Mon Aug 01, 2016 2:38 pm
- Contact:
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
What I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
Ok sorry but just what.Yandersen wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pmJeez, this V is just so special... Look even what version of his pointless two-weeks iterations he finally decided to put into the release! I am fairly shocked how much human-hours and brainwork vent in vain. "Built-in flare-stack is out of the question" he said? OK. What he did? A built-in flare-stack that just burns LO and HO completely to 0. Why giving alternatives, right? Just cut out confusing outputs and give kids one to do a single thing with it. Is that a new Factorio approach? To fuck with this feedback and "cooperation with community" illusion bullshit, just ban me to help me waste no more time here...
Yes, I have been considering various options, of course every single proposed option did get considered, and every single one of them had some issues. That does not mean wasted time, that means confirming the solution was correct, and that's absolutely valuable.
I guess for you your only "time not wasted" condition was "devs obey my change proposals", then I'm sorry but I believe the chosen solution is objectively best.
Built-in flare stack for the first process, but full complexity of the advanced process is indeed much better than providing a flare stack which would make both basic and advanced trivial.
Thank you for calling "cooperation with community" bullshit, I did what I could.
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
None of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.Theikkru wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 4:48 pmWhat I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
So why not just changing one of the mining spots in crude oil deposits to output PG, so in case pumpjack is placed over it, it outputs PG, not crude oil? Isn't it the same thing in the end as processing via 1in-1out refinery of yours? Then you can skip BOP completely and introduce normal 3out-refinery together with crackings things at the point where AOP took place before. All goals solved, all current issues with your solution disappear. Or am I wrong here?V453000 wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pmNone of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.Theikkru wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 4:48 pmWhat I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).
Last edited by Yandersen on Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
What about solid fuel? I'd thought that the 0.17 introduction to the chem pack was meant to highlight an underappreciated fuel source, rather than just sink excess oil products. If the latter, then these changes obviate the need, but if the former, then this seems like a step backwards.
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
With the way the oil system was set up they weren't necessary. There is never really any need to transport multiple fluids in one train. It's not like you need to transport heavy oil, light oil and petroleum somewhere. Petroleum gas is king and you just crack most of it to it. There would need to be a lot more fluids and gasses with varied uses for the old tanker to have a use
-
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 2768
- Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:01 pm
- Contact:
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
Further, many of us have been begging that if you (the devs) still felt as though a change was needed, to not take a sledgehammer to it. There was nothing wrong with the heavy+pg solution and in fact should have been easier to implement as the only thing truly requiring a change would have been flamethrower ammo. You could still modify blue science and rocket fuel if you liked, but that wouldn't have been required.
My Mods: Classic Factorio Basic Oil Processing | Sulfur Production from Oils | Wood to Oil Processing | Infinite Resources - Normal Yield | Tree Saplings (Redux) | Alien Biomes Tweaked | Restrictions on Artificial Tiles | New Gear Girl & HR Graphics
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
So not being able to use oil as a viable fuel source before advanced processing is not a flaw? Sticking construction bots further back into the tech tree is not a flaw?V453000 wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pmNone of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.Theikkru wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 4:48 pmWhat I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
You can absolutely use it as a viable fuel source, you just don't have the ultimate efficiency available later, but it's completely viable. Same way you don't have productivity modules lvl3 yet either.xnmo wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 5:14 pmSo not being able to use oil as a viable fuel source before advanced processing is not a flaw? Sticking construction bots further back into the tech tree is not a flaw?V453000 wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pmNone of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.Theikkru wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 4:48 pmWhat I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).
Construction robots further back is questionnable. It makes much more sense design-wise, but on the other end I can see why it was appealing. We'll see if the change is too drastic in this regard over time.
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
Good job alienating only dev who was willing to activelly discuss and brainstorm this change here on the forums and present ideas for tweaks to the rest of the team.
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
Obviously, Yandersen is upset, and that went too far depending on how you translate it, but the feeling is coming from a feeling that we were not taken seriously by the devs during this discussion. Can you see how your response supports that feeling?
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
Agreed. Your response comes off as "be grateful at least ONE of us was brave enough to discuss a controversial change with the community before we released it anyway".Adamo wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 5:25 pmObviously, Yandersen is upset, and that went too far depending on how you translate it, but the feeling is coming from a feeling that we were not taken seriously by the devs during this discussion. Can you see how your response supports that feeling?
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
There is a good and informative discussion here even without us interfering. We can consider feedback without directly responding to it. If interfering just means that I get shit thrown at me, of course I won't interfere, noone likes shit on their face.Aflixion wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 5:28 pmAgreed. Your response comes off as "be grateful at least ONE of us was brave enough to discuss a controversial change with the community before we released it anyway".Adamo wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 5:25 pmObviously, Yandersen is upset, and that went too far depending on how you translate it, but the feeling is coming from a feeling that we were not taken seriously by the devs during this discussion. Can you see how your response supports that feeling?
I'm an admin over at https://wiki.factorio.com. Feel free to contact me if there's anything wrong (or right) with it.
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
Ok can you please tell me what exactly you do not like in this solution:V453000 wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pmNone of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.
- BOP produces HO and PG
- Sulfur is produced from HO and LO
- Rocket fuel is produced from LO only
- Plastic is produced from PG
- AOP gets gas liquification (PG -> LO)
- Flamethrower ammo requires HO
- Blue science gets Sulfur and Plastic (or still red chips)
Player gets well visually aware of output imbalance due to direct conversion of HO->Sulfur and PG->Plastic. Balance can still be achieved by either storing or producing solid fuel.
Balancing 2 liquids is much easier than 3, there is no mess with pipes as there are only 2 output liquids, which obviously does not break player's mind. If a player can't solve such simple task than obviously Factorio is not for him.
AOP will still be a requirement for rocket fuel and will help player reach perfect balance in either way (Sulfur, or Plastic, or Rocket Fuel).
I am pretty sure that you should not simplify it any further than that. However this recipe does teach the player at least something new as FFF-304 does not teach anything new or good, it does only stimulate false solutions such as placing refineries adjacent to each other or pipes adjacent to refineries.
Anyways no solution really addresses the core issue - GUI indication of output blocking. So you are fighting with windmills here V.
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
I do think we also have to take in account that like, we, the people posting on these boards are generally the people who invest / have invested more time in the game. Like, we're not a representative slice of the people who play factorio. I'd say, try it out a bit, give feedback, wait until the devs can get their feedback from more sources as well, etc... It's an experimental changes patch still. Like, nothing dramatic has changed yet and more changes are still going to happen. They have said themselves that more tutorials fall under .18 if I recall correctly. There's been big sweeping changes before all we all lived through them. At the end, to launch a rocket you still need to balance multiple oil outputs. This is what experimental patches are for, to explore concepts and see how they actually work in gameplay.
- BlueTemplar
- Smart Inserter
- Posts: 2831
- Joined: Fri Jun 08, 2018 2:16 pm
- Contact:
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
They were really appreciated in mods :Serenity wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 5:08 pmWith the way the oil system was set up they weren't necessary. There is never really any need to transport multiple fluids in one train. It's not like you need to transport heavy oil, light oil and petroleum somewhere. Petroleum gas is king and you just crack most of it to it. There would need to be a lot more fluids and gasses with varied uses for the old tanker to have a use
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii4Z59isxpY
BobDiggity (mod-scenario-pack)
Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes
Ok, what should I have said instead, is that the final decision which variant to put to today's release was not entirely on Vaclav. So attacking him personally misses the mark.Aflixion wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 5:28 pmAgreed. Your response comes off as "be grateful at least ONE of us was brave enough to discuss a controversial change with the community before we released it anyway".Adamo wrote: βTue Jul 30, 2019 5:25 pmObviously, Yandersen is upset, and that went too far depending on how you translate it, but the feeling is coming from a feeling that we were not taken seriously by the devs during this discussion. Can you see how your response supports that feeling?