Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Regular reports on Factorio development.
Antaios
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 60
Joined: Sun Jun 14, 2015 5:18 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Antaios »

conn11 wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:23 pm
Wouldn't it be quite smart from a development standpoint to try out an alternative, more simple approch like newBOP now and .17 stable and still have the chance for UI changes (and tutorials) and if needed whatever alterations in BOP later, e.g. in .18?
No, you're pushing this as if I'm supposed to abandon all reasoning I have constructed thus far.
I told you, the new basic oil processing isn't a simpler approach / simpler change.

FuryoftheStars
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by FuryoftheStars »

Antaios wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:52 pm
conn11 wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:23 pm
Wouldn't it be quite smart from a development standpoint to try out an alternative, more simple approch like newBOP now and .17 stable and still have the chance for UI changes (and tutorials) and if needed whatever alterations in BOP later, e.g. in .18?
No, you're pushing this as if I'm supposed to abandon all reasoning I have constructed thus far.
I told you, the new basic oil processing isn't a simpler approach / simpler change.
I'm in agreement here. UI changes allow you to fix something without changing game play.

Tricorius
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Tricorius »

conn11 wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:49 pm

"most" my bad.
I do find the suggestion of some additional science pack, maybe needed for some more product rich variant of BOP and/or some highly speculatic early construction drones quite intriguing. Actually it's hard to argue against this last half belt :D
No worries, I wasn’t trying to be critical. Just tossing my two cents into the science debate. I’d place the additional science between yellow/purple and space science. It helps smooth the additional, kinda crazy ramp up to rocket and gives you a nicely half-empty belt begging to be filled in by the final science pack. ;)

(I’d also like this rebalance to bring earlier construction bots. I don’t think they make a lot of sense behind “chemical”. Honestly, I think early construction bots should be right in the middle of red/green (automation/logistics) and then the fancy construction bots should be early yellow (utility) and fancy logistics bots early purple (productivity).

Koub
Global Moderator
Global Moderator
Posts: 5577
Joined: Fri May 30, 2014 8:54 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Koub »

nafira wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:58 pm
@Koub : is it possible to have that kind of pool instead of posting in an everlasting thread. It has deviated too much already and it's beginning to be pointless.
I'm okay with polls, but my personal opinion is that a poll (or even the discussions that keep on going on the subject currently) will have no effect whatsoever, and are just people chatting.
It's a totally personal opinion, because my reading of the whole story is the following :

1) The devs get (whatever it came from) the feeling that at some point the game is not as it should ...
2) ... but the dev team is split on how to fix things
3) they try to come up with a "less worse" solution, and expose it on an FFF. Two possible outcomes : Either the changes are acclaimed overall, and they can be satisfied with their decision, or people dislike the planned change, and voice their opinion on the question
4) Bad luck, devs, shitstorm wreaks havoc on the forum, the howling crowd calls for blood, and a huge quantity of feedback, additional thoughts, suggestions are made
5) The devs acknowledge there might be better solutions than what they first came with.
6) They iterate their internal discussions with the massive additional input, discard the suggestions that don't suit them, and tweak their initial idea to a better consensus between the devs.
7) Second FFF + a mod to let people test the coming change
8) Still a lot of displeased people, but nothing new (or not much) is posted that can convince the devs they head in the wrong direction.
9) 0.17.60 is out. The part of the community that was the more hostile to the change is still hostile and voices it continuously, but during the last period, there were more people saying they either approved the changes (totally or partially) or didn't care much.

We're here. Almost everything that has happened on the subject until now is theoric. What the devs need is experimental data. They need people to play, to get used to the novelty, feedback from newbies, ... In a few weeks/months, depending on what overall feedback they'll have collected, either they'll be comforted in their choice, or they will come to the conclusion that it's still suboptimal/worse, and they have to get back to the drawing table. And just in case people think that the devs don't listen to feedback, if time proves they were wrong on a decision, they will admit it and revert the problematic change (yes, rail planning, you're the one I'm talking about).

To be honest, past the first few days, most of the feedback has been emotional escalation, and endless repetition of the same suggestions/arguments. Unless something radically new gets added in the debate, there is no reason for the devs to change their minds.

So I'd say to all here : play the game, if you're viscerally opposed to the change and never ever want to play with this new path, mod it or revert to 0.17.59 in the hope something new gets the debate tilt towards "the devs were wrong after all". Or give things a try with a blank mind, enjoy your time on the game, I'm sure that most of you will have forgotten the issue within a few months.
Koub - Please consider English is not my native language.

conn11
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 283
Joined: Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:02 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by conn11 »

Antaios wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:52 pm
conn11 wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 7:23 pm
Wouldn't it be quite smart from a development standpoint to try out an alternative, more simple approch like newBOP now and .17 stable and still have the chance for UI changes (and tutorials) and if needed whatever alterations in BOP later, e.g. in .18?
No, you're pushing this as if I'm supposed to abandon all reasoning I have constructed thus far.
I told you, the new basic oil processing isn't a simpler approach / simpler change.
Far be it for me to push anything, your analysis of science pack set ups is most well made. I am all for UI enhancements and tutorials, although I don't think they are enough, but this is lastly irrelevant.

nafira
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 89
Joined: Fri Mar 16, 2018 12:20 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by nafira »

Koub wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:12 pm
nafira wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 4:58 pm
@Koub : is it possible to have that kind of pool instead of posting in an everlasting thread. It has deviated too much already and it's beginning to be pointless.
I'm okay with polls, but my personal opinion is that a poll (or even the discussions that keep on going on the subject currently) will have no effect whatsoever, and are just people chatting.
It's a totally personal opinion, because my reading of the whole story is the following :

1) The devs get (whatever it came from) the feeling that at some point the game is not as it should ...
2) ... but the dev team is split on how to fix things
3) they try to come up with a "less worse" solution, and expose it on an FFF. Two possible outcomes : Either the changes are acclaimed overall, and they can be satisfied with their decision, or people dislike the planned change, and voice their opinion on the question
4) Bad luck, devs, shitstorm wreaks havoc on the forum, the howling crowd calls for blood, and a huge quantity of feedback, additional thoughts, suggestions are made
5) The devs acknowledge there might be better solutions than what they first came with.
6) They iterate their internal discussions with the massive additional input, discard the suggestions that don't suit them, and tweak their initial idea to a better consensus between the devs.
7) Second FFF + a mod to let people test the coming change
8) Still a lot of displeased people, but nothing new (or not much) is posted that can convince the devs they head in the wrong direction.
9) 0.17.60 is out. The part of the community that was the more hostile to the change is still hostile and voices it continuously, but during the last period, there were more people saying they either approved the changes (totally or partially) or didn't care much.

We're here. Almost everything that has happened on the subject until now is theoric. What the devs need is experimental data. They need people to play, to get used to the novelty, feedback from newbies, ... In a few weeks/months, depending on what overall feedback they'll have collected, either they'll be comforted in their choice, or they will come to the conclusion that it's still suboptimal/worse, and they have to get back to the drawing table. And just in case people think that the devs don't listen to feedback, if time proves they were wrong on a decision, they will admit it and revert the problematic change (yes, rail planning, you're the one I'm talking about).

To be honest, past the first few days, most of the feedback has been emotional escalation, and endless repetition of the same suggestions/arguments. Unless something radically new gets added in the debate, there is no reason for the devs to change their minds.

So I'd say to all here : play the game, if you're viscerally opposed to the change and never ever want to play with this new path, mod it or revert to 0.17.59 in the hope something new gets the debate tilt towards "the devs were wrong after all". Or give things a try with a blank mind, enjoy your time on the game, I'm sure that most of you will have forgotten the issue within a few months.
Thank you for taking the time to fully answer and going forward.
I can't deny it's quite an hopeless attempt to calm down people with a poll, because a lot of the frustration comes from broken map, which is 200% normal (this is experimental so don't expect otherwise).

I hope that Friday we will have a first feedback at what they heard.
Personally I'm 99% ok with their changes, making a good use of Sulfur, and so Petroleum. So I want this update, it's fresh stuff. I'm only skeptical on the effect of Basic Oil recipe : no learning, bad habits, and harder to go to 3 fluids for new players. And it's hard to monitor. Only rocket launch will tell.

It won't change end game, but it's going to hurt the game, creating a gap between before and after Advanced Oil. :(

Serenity
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 732
Joined: Fri Apr 15, 2016 6:16 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Serenity »

nafira wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:44 pm
It won't change end game, but it's going to hurt the game, creating a gap between before and after Advanced Oil.
It still has a small effect on the end game is it makes it very easy to make plastic. It will trivialize many large bases.

But yeah, the BOP change is the only truly bad aspect for me. I don't like the flamethrower ammo change either, but it's not a big deal.
I get that some people are upset about bots, but I don't really rush them personally as I find them too slow without blue science.

mcdjfp
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 57
Joined: Sat May 20, 2017 12:42 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by mcdjfp »

I am still against the changes, but I do intend to try 17.60 as soon as I finish my current base. I will miss the old oil recipes because they were different than all of the other tedium going on. Without having to worry about the outputs, I worry oil will feel like just another assembly machine. I will have to see, but this will take time (month+ not a week), which is why I was shocked to see this before a stable 0.17.

I will say it again. Announcing on Friday that you intend to make all of these changes on Monday does not invite discussion, it invites panic.

I would like to hear exactly why a tutorial on fluids/oil was not tried.

jodokus31
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 586
Joined: Sun Feb 26, 2017 4:13 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by jodokus31 »

Just one additional idea:
If the BOP refinery must not have multiple outputs, maybe it can have multiple inputs.
f.e.: water like AOP
This would reduce the barrier to AOP a tiny bit and the player would learn multiple pipe connections. And it would look better as it looks so lonely at the moment :)

huancz
Burner Inserter
Burner Inserter
Posts: 13
Joined: Sun Jul 21, 2019 11:41 am
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by huancz »

If nothing else, it really enabled me to try new things. If I know I'm building temporary solution, I can make it REALLY temporary. I'm trying some of angels mods in this game, imagine assembly machine 2 set to empty water barrels in place of the pump. This looks very much like my very first plastics/sulphur setup, except it's not near water source. I'm not sure if I knew about barelling liquids at this point but it wouldn't have helped too much anyway with the three outputs.

Transporting all the required stuff back and forth on foot is very manageable at this point in game - getting advanced oil this way is just matter of waiting (=dealing with the other stuff that would need my attention anyway).

Image

meganothing
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by meganothing »

FuryoftheStars wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:47 pm
meganothing wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 6:37 pm
Because it is entirely possible that no further version ever gets released.
That's obviously not what happened here. And, by staying on an older version, you also lose access to new/updated mods.
Equally obviously I said that for the general case of EA. To show that steam tells you to keep your expectation low and not expect anything out of it than the current version.

Your idea of giving money to a developer that you can take back any time is not something that is modelled within EA. It is also a deal probably no honest developer would take. He would risk ruinous debts he could never repay in his life if his game fails.

FuryoftheStars
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by FuryoftheStars »

meganothing wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:20 pm
Your idea of giving money to a developer that you can take back any time is not something that is modelled within EA. It is also a deal probably no honest developer would take. He would risk ruinous debts he could never repay in his life if his game fails.
No kidding. Hence my feeling hurt having given money thinking it was going one way but oops, maybe not.

User avatar
5thHorseman
Smart Inserter
Smart Inserter
Posts: 1012
Joined: Fri Jun 10, 2016 11:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by 5thHorseman »

FuryoftheStars wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 11:59 pm
No kidding. Hence my feeling hurt having given money thinking it was going one way but oops, maybe not.
Never ever give a developer money because you think the thing you're buying will some day be worth it. Give them money because the thing you're buying is currently worth it.

I paid good money for Space Base DF9 and will never buy a game I consider not worth the money again. Factorio was and still is well worth what they're charging, and if for some reason they make a change that I think makes the game so bad that it becomes not worth that money (hint: this ain't it), I can both rest easy that I already got far more enjoyment out of my money than for most other things, and also that I can always just not use that version because they give me all the options of past versions I could ever want.
Factorio For Beginners Come along with me as I detail (hopefully) every single thing you can do in Factorio with a focus on explaining to beginners, in a lighthearted, slow paced Let's Play style.

FuryoftheStars
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 389
Joined: Tue Apr 25, 2017 2:01 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by FuryoftheStars »

Well, money aside, I kind of feel like all these posts saying “it’s EA, it should be expected” are being said as if we don’t have a right to be upset or hurt over the changes.

I just feel like it’s like saying if someone was to go on a date with another person, but before that first date they were warned that things may not go as they expect/may not end well. Fast forward a year, year and half, more for some. Something happens in the relationship and the first person is hurt by it and then someone comes out and says “what’s the problem? You were warned.”


?????

SuicideJunkie
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 85
Joined: Wed Aug 23, 2017 10:17 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by SuicideJunkie »

I've read through the thread just now, and there are still some things I don't understand:

1) Why do the devs feel that using Advanced oil processing in your refinery intended to be REQUIRED to launch a rocket?

Electric smelters aren't under that same opinion, but are the same type of efficiency upgrade (before the update removing the outputs made it an absolute hard requirement).

2) Why is double cracking from heavy considered to be new or hard? This is literally the same process as Steel, except with fluids instead of solids.

meganothing
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 230
Joined: Thu Sep 15, 2016 3:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by meganothing »

FuryoftheStars wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:21 am
Well, money aside, I kind of feel like all these posts saying “it’s EA, it should be expected” are being said as if we don’t have a right to be upset or hurt over the changes.

I just feel like it’s like saying if someone was to go on a date with another person, but before that first date they were warned that things may not go as they expect/may not end well. Fast forward a year, year and half, more for some. Something happens in the relationship and the first person is hurt by it and then someone comes out and says “what’s the problem? You were warned.”


?????
In the reality and in a normal relationship both persons are hurt AND share part of the blame when it breaks up. It almost never is the "fault" of only one party. Your and Wube's image of what the game should be was never absolutely identical and you think only Wube is to blame for not having the same image. You feel betrayed because you expected something you were never promised.

For me it seems unreasonable to expect a game in alpha to only make changes I like. There are just too many.

If you want a stone golem, don't buy a mud golem ;)

Tricorius
Fast Inserter
Fast Inserter
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Jul 01, 2016 9:04 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Tricorius »

meganothing wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 4:20 am
If you want a stone golem, don't buy a mud golem ;)
Well, sure. But you can always toss him in the furnace with some coal to fire him to stone. :D

User avatar
Filter62
Inserter
Inserter
Posts: 34
Joined: Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:54 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by Filter62 »

I'm fine with new changes, I like it. Setting up blue science was somehow easier and not so annoying for some reason) :D

P.S. I'm kinda noob though, I like to do all blue science research and only then rebuild into something that could actually work. :mrgreen:
Attachments
20190801115435_1.jpg
20190801115435_1.jpg (820.61 KiB) Viewed 866 times

mmmPI
Filter Inserter
Filter Inserter
Posts: 438
Joined: Mon Jun 20, 2016 6:10 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by mmmPI »

SuicideJunkie wrote:
Thu Aug 01, 2019 3:38 am
I've read through the thread just now, and there are still some things I don't understand:

1) Why do the devs feel that using Advanced oil processing in your refinery intended to be REQUIRED to launch a rocket?

Electric smelters aren't under that same opinion, but are the same type of efficiency upgrade (before the update removing the outputs made it an absolute hard requirement).

2) Why is double cracking from heavy considered to be new or hard? This is literally the same process as Steel, except with fluids instead of solids.
1) If you mean after the change,I think it's because it's considered the only puzzle left sort of, as the basic would be a learning step. If you mean before, it wasn't 'required' per say since you had to solve the puzzle earlier with the basic . (but it meant there was this potentially useless tech behind all you needed was cracking and basic).I think there would be (legitimate) complain if the only 3output process were to be optionnal. So i think it's how it unfold, with a mandadory advanced, and a simple basic.

2) It was pointed early in the FF304 if i remember correctly that it would add some 'tedious useless simple step' to force everyone to put ALL their crude throught the 2x cracking process at first. ( This was considering getting only Heavy oil from the basic oil processing and whithout considering making sulfur from heavy oil and/or light oil)
I like the comparaison with steel, i wasn't convinced by the explaination i'm reporting i would have prefer sulfur from heavy oil to be possible to alleviate the need of 2X cracking and get something different as basic oil processing, at least 2 outputs.

kbk
Long Handed Inserter
Long Handed Inserter
Posts: 57
Joined: Sun Jun 30, 2019 2:21 pm
Contact:

Re: Friday Facts #305 - The Oil Changes

Post by kbk »

Koub wrote:
Wed Jul 31, 2019 8:12 pm
9) 0.17.60 is out. The part of the community that was the more hostile to the change is still hostile and voices it continuously, but during the last period, there were more people saying they either approved the changes (totally or partially) or didn't care much.
I'd like to point out here that this is more of an indirect consequence of the fact that the oil changes discussions have been taking a whopping 2.5 weeks long and the matter is very very sophisticated. On the one hand, most people disagreeing these (either being for the changes partially or for keeping the matter in its pre-17.60 state) have just got tired in the way (that's also why some people get carried off emotionally). On the other hand, some of community's suggestions have actually made it to the end. So that's why at this point you might detect a significant bias shift towards changes' approval while the real shift may be not that major.
Should the discussion timespan be shorter we'd most probably see a harsher community response by that point. Should the devs approach be more community-centric (I mean, suggestions being collected into polls, 'you help decide' etc) — well, it depends. Although this takes up even more amount of effort from both the devs and the players, in general the changes probably would go smoother despite the bad initial reception because this helps route the community effort more within the community and less against the devs and their proposals. No need to firewall most of the 'shit in the face', bad proposals are drowned by the poll, more options to communicate the final decision as 'weighted', everybody wins (well... except the guys with really unfit proposals which didn't make it to the polls :D ). The result should feel quite close to the flow of FFF304 and FFF305 thread sections where V did not participate.

Aside all that I agree that the whole matter is overescalated and that the game lost almost nothing in quality to be (re)played anyway. And at the same time, to me it most certainly did lost a tiny bit. We'll all see how it all will work out in the future.

Post Reply

Return to “News”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users