Also, I wish the blueprint book changes were in the game already, to better manage all these changes and the ones that are still coming.
![Wink ;)](./images/smilies/icon_e_wink.gif)
Sure, having two outputs presents the "multiple outputs can block" early on, while not reducing the amount of things you need to do/worry about almost at all. Basic oil processing can still get stuck and that way it feels unsustainable, and the player just wants to rush advanced oil processing just like before - to get the functional version.PacifyerGrey wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:34 pmOk can you please tell me what exactly you do not like in this solution:V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pm 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.
I am pretty sure there is no problem with complexity, no tedium and no issues with pace.
- 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.
Sure there is a bit of imbalance from the start. And yes AOP is the final solution to it. And yes a player is motivated to research AOP soon enough.V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:45 pm Sure, having two outputs presents the "multiple outputs can block" early on, while not reducing the amount of things you need to do/worry about almost at all. Basic oil processing can still get stuck and that way it feels unsustainable, and the player just wants to rush advanced oil processing just like before - to get the functional version.
Sulfur not being from PG is dangerous, because it can easily happen that the player does not have enough PG sink (for example when starting to mine uranium and producing a lot of sulfuric acid, when producing accumulators and solar panels, maybe in combination with explosives). That way it is possible to get into a situation with "getting stuck" problems even if you already have proper Advanced oil processing set up including proper circuit-controlled cracking. The only way how this could happen otherwise is with Lubricant - typically only when you mass switch to express belts ... assuming you have enough iron plate/iron gear wheel production to show the lubricant being a bottleneck.
Balanced chemical science pack helps for sure, but it assumes the player is trying to use oil to get into chemical science first, which is not a super reliable assumption. It's likely the player will first try to use explosives/accumulators/other things available under red+green+military+oilPacifyerGrey wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:52 pmSure there is a bit of imbalance from the start. And yes AOP is the final solution to it. And yes a player is motivated to research AOP soon enough.V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:45 pm Sure, having two outputs presents the "multiple outputs can block" early on, while not reducing the amount of things you need to do/worry about almost at all. Basic oil processing can still get stuck and that way it feels unsustainable, and the player just wants to rush advanced oil processing just like before - to get the functional version.
Sulfur not being from PG is dangerous, because it can easily happen that the player does not have enough PG sink (for example when starting to mine uranium and producing a lot of sulfuric acid, when producing accumulators and solar panels, maybe in combination with explosives). That way it is possible to get into a situation with "getting stuck" problems even if you already have proper Advanced oil processing set up including proper circuit-controlled cracking. The only way how this could happen otherwise is with Lubricant - typically only when you mass switch to express belts ... assuming you have enough iron plate/iron gear wheel production to show the lubricant being a bottleneck.
However
With balanced blue science a playes has more than enough time and opportunities to research it. One liquid tank or one chest of Sulfur/plastic will get you almost all of the blue science researched.
So the solution has its issues but it is something that player has to solve!
The goal of this fix is not just dumbing it down but making is so that it would not be a stopper issue for the player!
2 outputs is still much easier to manage than 3, so it helps and is a step rather than a jump.V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:45 pm Sure, having two outputs presents the "multiple outputs can block" early on, while not reducing the amount of things you need to do/worry about almost at all. Basic oil processing can still get stuck and that way it feels unsustainable, and the player just wants to rush advanced oil processing just like before - to get the functional version.
And having as much as you did on PG is what was causing the stuck issues in the first place. Incidentally, there was already a solution: solid fuel. But trying to do that much solid fuel from both HO & LO previously to keep up with the PG demands was too much. With sulfur on HO, you only really need to convert LO into SF to relieve the blockage (less PG needs to be converted due to it being used in plastics which has a much higher demand). You also could have allowed sulfur production from all 3 (same as SF), just with the better ratio on HO.V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:45 pm Sulfur not being from PG is dangerous, because it can easily happen that the player does not have enough PG sink (for example when starting to mine uranium and producing a lot of sulfuric acid, when producing accumulators and solar panels, maybe in combination with explosives). That way it is possible to get into a situation with "getting stuck" problems even if you already have proper Advanced oil processing set up including proper circuit-controlled cracking. The only way how this could happen otherwise is with Lubricant - typically only when you mass switch to express belts ... assuming you have enough iron plate/iron gear wheel production to show the lubricant being a bottleneck.
Even so the only thing that a player can use the PG for is Plastic (or Solid fuel in this case). Yes there will be an issue with output blocking but it SHOULD be there at some point anyways. And I do find this solution as the least harsh way. BOP still has only 1 input, and a player gets only 2 outputs with all required lessons learned - about output blocking and about weaving pipes with different liquids. The later is a signature of oil refining and IMO should be kept but in a more tender way.V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:53 pm Balanced chemical science pack helps for sure, but it assumes the player is trying to use oil to get into chemical science first, which is not a super reliable assumption. It's likely the player will first try to use explosives/accumulators/other things available under red+green+military+oil
I appreciate that, as an artist, the physical perspective is about as far outside your wheelhouse as it is possible to be while staying in the same light cone, but it's important to remember that Factorio used to, and I say used to advisedly (perhaps due to the influence of a former staffer now moved on?), put a great deal of attention into making things, if not precisely realistic (magic gear wheels, to say the least), at least approaching a close parallel to physical consistency within its two-metals-oil-and-water framework — and this is what players like about it. The oil refining system, then, was always the crowning epitome of this principle, hewing a lower compromise with the hobgoblin of "balance" than most other games, so that a player with familiarity with real-world systems could at least recognise (if through a mirror darkly) the processes being depicted... and the sheer idiocy of harvesting sulphur out of the petroleum gas, which is very much not where it crowds naturally, was the most pustulent suppurating boil marring the face of this achievement. I've always personally assumed that it simply came out of a failure to understand the petrochemical industry's often baffling and contradictory English-language jargon by primary speakers of other European languages. Loosely speaking, it doesn't matter whether the player has enough of a petroleum gas sink; sulphur should be where sulphur should be and there's no arguing around it, because if you didn't want it to behave like sulphur, you should have called it something like "batterium" and called it a day.V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:45 pm Sulfur not being from PG is dangerous, because it can easily happen that the player does not have enough PG sink
If this is the main concern, then cracking should simply be unlocked earlier by red/green, similar to lubricant. It's much less disruptive of a change and keeps many of the positives of the previous progression. The blue science research would be simply a much more favourable output ratio and volume - this is not unprecedented, even if it might make basic oil processing redundant in people's eyes, as other researches do similar things. Stone furnaces, Electric miners etc.V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:53 pm Also, it's not just about making BOP easier/simpler. It's mainly about making it self-sufficient. You don't need to rush for AOP because the refinery is just getting stuck which is super annoying. It actually works, and to unlock more things, or to be more efficient, you get AOP. That relieves a lot of stress and frustration, and from rushing for chemical science pack.
Easily avoidable. Try to listen to your customers and value their feedback. If the Factorio will be distributed for free, you can do what you want. But this is a commercial product, we are the customers, we pay money to you, so you can't ignore what customers wanted (WERE AGAINST, in this particular case). No matter what you say now in your defense, the fact shows clearly that none of your customers changed a damned thing by spending their free time here (and I bet a lot of it, considering the sizes and content of the posts). Paradox team does the same. Modern way of game developement? Should customers get use to be ignored nowadays?Bilka wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:31 pm 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.
But, I'm a customer too and I love the changes... So which customer should they listen ?Yandersen wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:37 pmEasily avoidable. Try to listen to your customers and value their feedback. If the Factorio will be distributed for free, you can do what you want. But this is a commercial product, we are the customers, we pay money to you, so you can't ignore what customers wanted (WERE AGAINST, in this particular case). No matter what you say now in your defense, the fact shows clearly that none of your customers changed a damned thing by spending their free time here (and I bet a lot of it, considering the sizes and content of the posts). Paradox team does the same. Modern way of game developement? Should customers get use to be ignored nowadays?Bilka wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:31 pm 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.
I can't help but note an important possibility here:Yandersen wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:37 pmEasily avoidable. Try to listen to your customers and value their feedback. If the Factorio will be distributed for free, you can do what you want. But this is a commercial product, we are the customers, we pay money to you, so you can't ignore what customers wanted (WERE AGAINST, in this particular case). No matter what you say now in your defense, the fact shows clearly that none of your customers changed a damned thing by spending their free time here (and I bet a lot of it, considering the sizes and content of the posts). Paradox team does the same. Modern way of game developement? Should customers get use to be ignored nowadays?Bilka wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:31 pm 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.
If you were here for two weeks straight reading all propositions, I am sure that you would find many others that you will be happy with too. There WERE better optionS proposed, I promise you.DanGio wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:41 pmBut, I'm a customer too and I love the changes... So which customer should they listen ?Yandersen wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:37 pmEasily avoidable. Try to listen to your customers and value their feedback. If the Factorio will be distributed for free, you can do what you want. But this is a commercial product, we are the customers, we pay money to you, so you can't ignore what customers wanted (WERE AGAINST, in this particular case). No matter what you say now in your defense, the fact shows clearly that none of your customers changed a damned thing by spending their free time here (and I bet a lot of it, considering the sizes and content of the posts). Paradox team does the same. Modern way of game developement? Should customers get use to be ignored nowadays?Bilka wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:31 pm 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.![]()
Before the recipe gave 30H/30L/40P. L is worth 2x for SF so it is equivalent to 130P total. Now it gives 45P. A third of the fuel value if you used to get. A half of the fuel you got if you, like most people, didn't burn away your petrol since it has critically important uses.V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:22 pmYou 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: Tue 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: Tue 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: Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:48 pm 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).
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.
You think that less communication would prevent the issue?Bilka wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:31 pm 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.
I were here, even if I didn't post as much as you. I can guarantee I've read every post until yesterday, when I got sick of reading the same 5 solutions posted over and over again as if they were brand new.Yandersen wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:46 pmIf you were here for two weeks straight reading all propositions, I am sure that you would find many others that you will be happy with too. There WERE better optionS proposed, I promise you.DanGio wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:41 pmBut, I'm a customer too and I love the changes... So which customer should they listen ?Yandersen wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:37 pmEasily avoidable. Try to listen to your customers and value their feedback. If the Factorio will be distributed for free, you can do what you want. But this is a commercial product, we are the customers, we pay money to you, so you can't ignore what customers wanted (WERE AGAINST, in this particular case). No matter what you say now in your defense, the fact shows clearly that none of your customers changed a damned thing by spending their free time here (and I bet a lot of it, considering the sizes and content of the posts). Paradox team does the same. Modern way of game developement? Should customers get use to be ignored nowadays?Bilka wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:31 pm 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.![]()
Remember that the devs regularly test the game with completely new players.huancz wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:30 pm Well, it finally dropped. I think the waiting in past few days was maybe worse than the change itself, and most of the posts were just reiterating arguments already made.
I won't update for now in the middle of my game, but will eventually when I'll be starting a new map. It's still a disappointment. The devs are adamant that blocking oil is THE problem they need to solve, despite many arguments against it. Maybe they have some information we don't, and they won't even hint at. Or they are just bad at getting their point across. If you take that into account, I'm not too surprised which solution they chose. I just hope that they have some specific metric in mind to measure if it helped at all. I think it won't, but I am sure I'm just biased. And still pretty green in the game.
Even if it ruined the game completely (which it doesn't, I'll just have to learn to belt different stuff around), at ~250h I got my money's worth and I don't intend to stop having fun just yet.