Friday Facts #409 - Diminishing beacons

[morsk]

Ok, you are either treating us like we are stupid or hiding real reason for this change.

What you did won't change designs. More beacons is still better...
If you truly wished for cutting their number, you would code hard limits on assemblers and other devices.
Just like it is with efficiency but for productivity, speed etc.

I agree if they wanted to fix beacon spam, they would have done things they didn't do here. We can conclude they don't want to fix it.

But I don't think it's a hidden motive about space platforms. 12-beacon is a "playstyle" and they didn't want to remove it, that's all. Some people get really mad when their playstyle is removed. The changes here are probably the best we can get without removing things from others.

[CyberCider]

The logistical separation would be there for railways, just make every map giant-sized. As in actual planetary scale, as opposed to the relatively narrow ribbons we currently get for things like Rail world maps. Good luck running power poles OR rails across an entire ocean! Just make sure you code it so that there's a certain depth of water, a certain distance offshore, that even elevated rails can't traverse.


And no, as it stands now the current gameplay will be almost completely identical between planets.

Sure, there's a couple new sources for materials, and a couple new machines, but that's barely a difference. And there's ways to actually void things now, but that's nothing that mods haven't already added. There's nothing new here, that couldn't be added to Nauvis without trouble.

The only difference will be during the start, deciding which planet you want to start on. After that, the gameplay loops are all perfectly identical with a few mostly cosmetic changes between them.

Turn the space platform into a giant geostationary solar power station, transmitting power wirelessly back to Nauvis. Add a shipyard to build your eventual FTL ship.
THAT is unique gameplay, right there. And you never need to go beyond Nauvis. Hell, it's already a thing in Space Exploration!

You could do literally everything that 2.0 already does, without the need for any other planets. Different biomes, new machines, different enemy spawns, huge oceans full of oil, volcanoes and lava rivers, large piles of scrap just dumped everywhere, everything.
While the expansion looks and sounds great, there was literally no need for a vast majority of what it's bringing.

"Unique gameplay" my dragon's foot. Almost everything said in all of these FFFs are cosmetic changes only. Including the new planets.

“Deciding which planet you want to start on”
What are you talking about? Have you even been reading the blog posts?

Really, you say things like this, and then you call completely flipping the crafting tree upside down “cosmetic”. Both planets shown so far thoroughly change the way you obtain and process resources. They make you adapt your gameplay to their unique restrictions, which could all be very easily ignored if old resources and terrain were just a few chunks away.

Also, it really doesn’t matter how long the rail is, a train is still a train. Just a regular 1.1 train, not a new and complex logistics method. No rocket launch cost that makes you strategically select what you’re sending, and no interesting design puzzle in making different models of space platforms. Just the same train we have all built a thousand times.

And please, could you at least wait until we’ve seen all the content before starting to call it “unnecessary”? There is still plenty of time for them to add an interstellar spaceship. Really, why do you think the final planet is the one at the edge of the star system? For the scenic view, maybe?

[FuryoftheStars]

In https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-402 the foundry crafts 260 times per second and I suspect that every craft needs 10 fluid (as max machine input fluid capacity is 20). That makes it require 2600 input fluid per second. For a single machine. Ludicrous indeed

It's only using 2.
viewtopic.php?p=609242#p609242

[Saphira123456]

The logistical separation would be there for railways, just make every map giant-sized. As in actual planetary scale, as opposed to the relatively narrow ribbons we currently get for things like Rail world maps. Good luck running power poles OR rails across an entire ocean! Just make sure you code it so that there's a certain depth of water, a certain distance offshore, that even elevated rails can't traverse.


And no, as it stands now the current gameplay will be almost completely identical between planets.

Sure, there's a couple new sources for materials, and a couple new machines, but that's barely a difference. And there's ways to actually void things now, but that's nothing that mods haven't already added. There's nothing new here, that couldn't be added to Nauvis without trouble.

The only difference will be during the start, deciding which planet you want to start on. After that, the gameplay loops are all perfectly identical with a few mostly cosmetic changes between them.

Turn the space platform into a giant geostationary solar power station, transmitting power wirelessly back to Nauvis. Add a shipyard to build your eventual FTL ship.
THAT is unique gameplay, right there. And you never need to go beyond Nauvis. Hell, it's already a thing in Space Exploration!

You could do literally everything that 2.0 already does, without the need for any other planets. Different biomes, new machines, different enemy spawns, huge oceans full of oil, volcanoes and lava rivers, large piles of scrap just dumped everywhere, everything.
While the expansion looks and sounds great, there was literally no need for a vast majority of what it's bringing.

"Unique gameplay" my dragon's foot. Almost everything said in all of these FFFs are cosmetic changes only. Including the new planets.

“Deciding which planet you want to start on”
What are you talking about? Have you even been reading the blog posts?

Really, you say things like this, and then you call completely flipping the crafting tree upside down “cosmetic”. Both planets shown so far thoroughly change the way you obtain and process resources. They make you adapt your gameplay to their unique restrictions, which could all be very easily ignored if old resources and terrain were just a few chunks away.

Also, it really doesn’t matter how long the rail is, a train is still a train. Just a regular 1.1 train, not a new and complex logistics method. No rocket launch cost that makes you strategically select what you’re sending, and no interesting design puzzle in making different models of space platforms. Just the same train we have all built a thousand times.

And please, could you at least wait until we’ve seen all the content before starting to call it “unnecessary”? There is still plenty of time for them to add an interstellar spaceship. Really, why do you think the final planet is the one at the edge of the star system? For the scenic view, maybe?

Yeah, I've read all the FFFs since version two point zero of the game was announced, and the crafting tree isn't upside down on any planet. It's identical on them all.

Sure there are a few new ways to obtain the resources you want, whether that's through recycling scrap or through but harvesting molten metal (lava) instead of breaking down ores, but that could have been implemented on Nauvis and there would have been no significant changes to gameplay other than a couple new buildings.

Everything is going to be almost identical to 1.1. The exceptions are a few new options for buildings - those elevated rails, the foundry and the recycler, etcetera - the voiding mechanic, and a few pretty new planets to build on. The significant parts of the expansion (voiding and recycling) have mostly already been added through mods, and there's nothing saying the other new buildings couldn't be similar.

It's all going to be identical to 1.1, just with some extra buildings, extra and simplified rocket launches, and some scenery changes. Nothing really that new or different except for graphics.

Find raw material. Build extractor (drills or offshore pump). Build smelting equipment (furnaces or foundry). Build assemblers. Optional: Build defenses (IF you have Biters turned on.) Done. Move onto the next planet.
OR (on the scrap planet): Build extractor. Build recyclers. Build assemblers. (Optional: Build defenses). Done. Move on to the next planet.

Identical gameplay loop in 1.1 AND 2.0, with cosmetic differences only. The whole expansion so far seems to be more akin to a cosmetic scenery pack than a proper gameplay expansion, since there's very little that's going to be different gameplaywise.

No matter what minor gameplay changes they make, Factorio will be Factorio. They can slap a fancy new version number on it, but they might as well call it 1.2 rather than 2.0, since at its' core this update appears to be just a fancier 1.1 with extra added buildings and two added mechanics.

Everything in 2.0 could have easily been in 1.1. And without any new planets whatsoever, since both the gameplay loop and the progression will be nearly identical.

[FuryoftheStars]

Hottake: If a player is so far into Factory optimisation as to spam beacons and obsessing over exact production statistics, they can be expected to use a calculator.

Calculators? What are those? Machine go fast, engineer happy.

I'm right there with ya!

[mmmPI]

The ability to write not just numbers but whole numerical expression as input of combinators and the possibility to add description to them may alleviate the need for extra calculators, it will be easier to have some cheat cheets in game directly.

[CyberCider]

Yeah, I've read all the FFFs since version two point zero of the game was announced, and the crafting tree isn't upside down on any planet. It's identical on them all.

Sure there are a few new ways to obtain the resources you want, whether that's through recycling scrap or through but harvesting molten metal (lava) instead of breaking down ores, but that could have been implemented on Nauvis and there would have been no significant changes to gameplay other than a couple new buildings.

Everything is going to be almost identical to 1.1. The exceptions are a few new options for buildings - those elevated rails, the foundry and the recycler, etcetera - the voiding mechanic, and a few pretty new planets to build on. The significant parts of the expansion (voiding and recycling) have mostly already been added through mods, and there's nothing saying the other new buildings couldn't be similar.

It's all going to be identical to 1.1, just with some extra buildings, extra and simplified rocket launches, and some scenery changes. Nothing really that new or different except for graphics.

Find raw material. Build extractor (drills or offshore pump). Build smelting equipment (furnaces or foundry). Build assemblers. Optional: Build defenses (IF you have Biters turned on.) Done. Move onto the next planet.
OR (on the scrap planet): Build extractor. Build recyclers. Build assemblers. (Optional: Build defenses). Done. Move on to the next planet.

Identical gameplay loop in 1.1 AND 2.0, with cosmetic differences only. The whole expansion so far seems to be more akin to a cosmetic scenery pack than a proper gameplay expansion, since there's very little that's going to be different gameplaywise.

No matter what minor gameplay changes they make, Factorio will be Factorio. They can slap a fancy new version number on it, but they might as well call it 1.2 rather than 2.0, since at its' core this update appears to be just a fancier 1.1 with extra added buildings.

By “upside down”, I meant the part where you, for example, start with blue circuits and turn them into green circuits, instead of the other way around. I thought it was a pretty clear analogy.

Anyway, it looks to me like we’re just disagreeing over definitions. You seem to believe that “build assemblers” is one homogenous action that isn’t at all affected by what the assemblers are assembling, or out of what. And you also, for example, equate standard furnaces and foundries, despite their differences, just because they fill the same role. If that truly is how you view the game, then your statements are correct. You seem to just have a different approach to this game, one which I do not understand. And there’s nothing I can (or want to) do about that.

After all, I wouldn’t want this discussion to… “drag on”

[MEOWMI]

I'd say this is a good change.

The old playstyle is not invalidated. No-one will build 12-beacon setups out of normal rarity beacons. It's an end-game strategy with mass production of highest tier modules.

In every situation except "12 normal rarity beacons", everything is viable, with its own upsides and downsides. This change seems like an upgrade in terms of strategic depth.

[ergzay]

I hope you change the icon for the molten copper/molten iron or whatever it's called. Right now they're both mostly orange so its visually hard to tell the difference at a glance.

[Saphira123456]

Yeah, I've read all the FFFs since version two point zero of the game was announced, and the crafting tree isn't upside down on any planet. It's identical on them all.

Sure there are a few new ways to obtain the resources you want, whether that's through recycling scrap or through but harvesting molten metal (lava) instead of breaking down ores, but that could have been implemented on Nauvis and there would have been no significant changes to gameplay other than a couple new buildings.

Everything is going to be almost identical to 1.1. The exceptions are a few new options for buildings - those elevated rails, the foundry and the recycler, etcetera - the voiding mechanic, and a few pretty new planets to build on. The significant parts of the expansion (voiding and recycling) have mostly already been added through mods, and there's nothing saying the other new buildings couldn't be similar.

It's all going to be identical to 1.1, just with some extra buildings, extra and simplified rocket launches, and some scenery changes. Nothing really that new or different except for graphics.

Find raw material. Build extractor (drills or offshore pump). Build smelting equipment (furnaces or foundry). Build assemblers. Optional: Build defenses (IF you have Biters turned on.) Done. Move onto the next planet.
OR (on the scrap planet): Build extractor. Build recyclers. Build assemblers. (Optional: Build defenses). Done. Move on to the next planet.

Identical gameplay loop in 1.1 AND 2.0, with cosmetic differences only. The whole expansion so far seems to be more akin to a cosmetic scenery pack than a proper gameplay expansion, since there's very little that's going to be different gameplaywise.

No matter what minor gameplay changes they make, Factorio will be Factorio. They can slap a fancy new version number on it, but they might as well call it 1.2 rather than 2.0, since at its' core this update appears to be just a fancier 1.1 with extra added buildings.

By “upside down”, I meant the part where you, for example, start with blue circuits and turn them into green circuits, instead of the other way around. I thought it was a pretty clear analogy.

Anyway, it looks to me like we’re just disagreeing over definitions. You seem to believe that “build assemblers” is one homogenous action that isn’t at all affected by what the assemblers are assembling, or out of what. And you also, for example, equate standard furnaces and foundries, despite their differences, just because they fill the same role. If that truly is how you view the game, then your statements are correct. You seem to just have a different approach to this game, one which I do not understand. And there’s nothing I can (or want to) do about that.

After all, I wouldn’t want this discussion to… “drag on”

So by "upside down" you mean recycling. Got it.

Of course there will be some minor differences. Number of assemblers, length of production lines. And other minor details.
And of course you have to manually assign what they're producing. That won't change between 1.1 and 2.0.


Again, these are minor changes compared to 1.1. The major changes are the fact that you can actually void unwanted products now, and you can actually recycle things, all in the vanilla game. To be perfectly honest, for these things it would have been cheaper and easier to just incorporate some existing mods into 1.1 and call it 1.2 since many of us have already been using mods to do these very things.

There are also some other sources of basic products, iron, copper and heavy oil. You still use the same old offshore pump to take the fluids, whether lava or heavy oil, and put it into a pipe network.

Some minor changes to elevate railroad tracks are another thing they've done as well, but again that feels like a mod.

The most significant change they've made on the ground is the removal of rocket control units as a component, and that's actually subtracting things, not adding them.
As for space, the space platform is indeed new gameplay. However, aside from its' limited construction area it just feels like a forced rehash of constructing things on the ground.

If they really wanted to have the gameplay changes they've made feel separated, they could have made a new, layered Nauvis with underground (lava) and above-ground (normal) gameplay. That would allow for both the volcanic and the normal biomes to exist separately while still allowing the engineer character and products to move between the two. Volcanoes on the surface would also be a thing.

Then certain parts of the planet could be filled with scrap, inclement weather could be added for the lightning, and underground lakes could be added for heavy oil.

There was no need to make new planets. None at all. I appreciate the hard work that went into them, but the singular product loop one uses to complete the game will not be changed in any significant manner. Reversed? Yes. Extended to repeat multiple times? Yes. Changed? No. Unique? No.

This isn't two point zero they're building, it's one point five. And IMHO, many of the changes such as recycling and voiding, should have been implemented in one point zero. Modders have made basically every significant mechanical change put into this expansion long before they made it official.

I may appreciate what they're doing but that doesn't make what they're doing necessary. It just introduces more variance and, to put it bluntly, more tedium. The same thing over and over and over again, ad nauseum. Again, just add the stuff to Nauvis.

[FuryoftheStars]

What you did won't change designs. More beacons is still better...
If you truly wished for cutting their number, you would code hard limits on assemblers and other devices.
Just like it is with efficiency but for productivity, speed etc.

I don't think that was their goal. Instead, I feel like they were wanting to introduce a bit of flexibility. Yes, there will still be people who will want to eek out that extra 2% where ever they can. But there are others who will now look at that and be like "eh, not sure it's worth the headache of trying to figure this part out."

At least, that's my impression.

------------------------------------

You seem to just have a different approach to this game, one which I do not understand.

I think there have been a number of us that have shared that opinion about that person....

------------------------------------

I really do not like beacons. Conceptually, they are weird and nonsensical. They emit an aura buff to machines around them, which is just way too out there for me.

I agree with you on beacons. Never liked em. I know there was some controversy around when they were first introduced.

------------------------------------

Also, wireless signals are “out there” to you? Really? You think the engineer can make nuclear reactors, but not wi-fi?

I think for those of us that feel as though beacons are a bit out there is because typically you can't (at least, to the degree this game does) increase the productivity, efficiency, or speed of something through pure software (which is what wireless transmission from beacons would be), unless of course the original software was complete trash. But then you'd be doing a full on upgrade of that, not a temporary one (which is what beacons and modules are).

Modules physically in the machines, on the other hand, can to some degree be abstracted as actual physical upgrades to the actual machine.

Now mind you, I'm not totally onboard with modules, either. Actual upgrades to the assemblers and the like themselves would've been better for the believability. But modules that at least go physically into the machines is still better than "ooo, hey, this machine can now move faster because I'm sending a wireless signal telling it to". (And the idea that the signal is telling the machine how to move faster... sorry, but physical machines just don't work that way. They require physical changes to get these kind of speed differentials out of them.)

[Gemma]

This is the Wube romance we all needed.

[adam_bise]

Fabulous! More math! More complexity! More spaghetti!!!1

[varundevan]

Please include rate/ratio calculator inbuilt ..
do not want to go to windows calculator or excel sheet every time and come back to the game ...

[bnrom]

That's pretty cool! I like how impactful a single beacon can feel.
I imagine it will feel especially great when one only has a few legendary modules (especially as legendary modules are so expensive!)


It's interesting. Am I right that with mixed quality modules adding a beacon could actually decrease the total bonus?

For example:
1 beacon with 2 legendary modules: 1.5 * 2.5 * 2 = 7.5 base module effect
(1.5 being the base transmission rate, 2.5 being the module multiplier from module quality, and 2 being because there are two modules)
2 beacons with a total of 2 legendary modules and 2 basic modules: 1.5 * 2*(2.5+1)/sqrt(2) ≈ 7.42! base module effect
(1.5 being the base transmission rate, 2*(2.5+1) being having two basic and two legendary modules, and /sqrt(2) being the penalty for having 2 beacons.

7.42 < 7.5 so it seems like it!

[aka13]

Please include rate/ratio calculator inbuilt ..
do not want to go to windows calculator or excel sheet every time and come back to the game ...

I am wondering, if that not already happened. THey talk about ratio calculations, and I can somehow not imagine them having a secret fork of factoriolab.

[AileTheAlien]

Perhaps I missed it, but one of the concerns about meddling with the beacons was whether the user would be able to calculate the benefits quickly in their head.

Since calculators are now a requirement, are you including one in-game?

I would also like an in-game calculator or graph, please!

[TheRaph]

Perhaps I missed it, but one of the concerns about meddling with the beacons was whether the user would be able to calculate the benefits quickly in their head. I am not saying head calculus should be a showstopper, but the need for more clear presentation of throughput numbers becomes even more paramount, and I did not feel that concern was addressed.

Agree 100% with this. You boys realize that you have now effectively required the use of online calculators for mere mortals to get accurate throughput numbers? Since calculators are now a requirement, are you including one in-game?

What about to display throughput in "per 60s" like Captain of Industry does.
So one don't need to calculate 6pc./4s vs. 3pc./8s = 1:4 ratio etc...

[EustaceCS]

Centrifuges are about to reach completely new level of graphical inappropriateness, with all that potential crafting speed increase...

[typecasto]

Perhaps I missed it, but one of the concerns about meddling with the beacons was whether the user would be able to calculate the benefits quickly in their head. I am not saying head calculus should be a showstopper, but the need for more clear presentation of throughput numbers becomes even more paramount, and I did not feel that concern was addressed.

Agree 100% with this. You boys realize that you have now effectively required the use of online calculators for mere mortals to get accurate throughput numbers? Since calculators are now a requirement, are you including one in-game?

It's hard to figure out the final output of factories, so we need online calculators to balance production
This one just got worse (if it is actually seen as a problem. I do, but that's me). Mental algebra that players needed to make used to be linear. Now it includes some square roots stuff. We are pretty much pushed back into "winging it" or going online to use an actual calculator. There is no middle ground anymore of actually trying the calculation by hand. I might be wrong on this one, please raise your hand in the audience if you enjoy calculation square roots of decimal values for fun on paper.

You don't have to calculate square roots of decimal values though, you only need the square roots of the numbers 1-16. Sure they're not exactly calculable by hand (unless you work in binary, that is), but it's only 16 values you need to memorize, and realistically it's even less than that, you probably only need a few of them (1, 2, 4, and 16 are trivial, and who's using 7-beacon builds anyways?). If you do your calculations on paper, just write down the table in the back of your notebook. It's definitely gonna make the calculations a bit harder, I'm not denying that at all, but this is certainly not "the end of hand calculations".