Make Solar Energy Research a Prerequisite for Rocket Silo Research in Space Age

[Panzerknacker]

Why do you always insist on having the last word? We know by now that you disagree, have some respect for the OP who put the effort to create the thread. You don't bring any new arguments to the table anyway except for your opinion about his arguments being 'illogical' which you said 3 times now.

[mmmPI]

Why do you always insist on having the last word?

I don't, someone quote me and ask a question while saying they want a discussion, i try to do my best, the question was regarding wether or not it's a bug, and i gave my opinon on that, i don't think it's a bug , it look like the tech tree was altered on purpose from 2.0 to SA, because a change that appear logical to me happened. The alteration of the tech tree is a hint imo for the latest question that was asked.

You said you had other things to do, hopefully that answer the question you couldn't resist asking without distracting too much.

[Panzerknacker]

Nah you're not contributing anything atm.

Ontopic:
What if we temporarily make solar panel prereq of Space science technology? This will fix the inconsistency. I really have to add tho that I prefer the other suggestion of being able to get by without solar in space and until Aquilo but that will take more time to implement/balance.

[mmmPI]

Ontopic:
What if we temporarily make solar panel prereq of Space science technology?

I think it's a non-sense to have such proposition with the goal of going to Aquilo without using solar in the same post.

Also "temporarily" makes no sense, the idea propose to address something that is not an oversight nor an inconsistency.

I don't see anything good in the proposition.

[Panzerknacker]

Look we know you don't like it, you don't need to keep repeating it only to have the last word. Just have some respect and GTFO another person's topic or actually suggest something better in the same line. Only repeating 'no' is just respectless, we know that by now.

[mmmPI]

Look we know you don't like it, you don't need to keep repeating it only to have the last word. Just have some respect and GTFO another person's topic or actually suggest something better in the same line. Only repeating 'no' is just respectless, we know that by now.

This is only a personnal attack, there is nothing about the proposition, but if you want some clarifications : you added new proposition unrelated on this thread, under the form of a what if that serve to suit your unrelated desire to go on Aquilo without solar pannel.

I couldn't have possibly given an opinion on this proposition already, unless considering you keep repeating the same thing. To me it appeared like a new, worse proposition than what was discussed earlier, and you were asking for opinion on it, thus i tried my best to quickly let you know my position, on your new proposition.

[Panzerknacker]

You have no respect, it's clear you don't want any changes in the line we are discussing here, we have heard that enough now, GTFO and make your own thread.

[mmmPI]

I don't think it make sense to ask me to open a new thread, i am not the one suggesting things, you are the one asking what about X and Y and then throwing a tantrum when people answer in a disagreement.

[Jap2.0]

Continuing this train of conversation is not helpful. You've been around long enough that you should know that.

----

Solar panels are required to beat the game so they should be a dependency somewhere. That's how it has always worked in Factorio before.

I think this kind of comes and goes, there was a while where it wasn't true, then a few version back they added a bunch of prerequisites for science packs and stuff... I don't remember details, but while this hadn't always historically been the case it seems to be trending that way.

----

You know what research isn't required to beat the base game? Electric mining drills. Everyone does it, though, because it'd be tortuous otherwise.

Oh *no*. Please tell me no one has done that... someone has, hasn't they. Also, I didn't realize that was a new technology.

[mmmPI]

Continuing this train of conversation is not helpful. You've been around long enough that you should know that.

My understanding is that if it's to discuss something different it should be in a different thread. There's no point pretending to continue conversation on a unrelated topic or derail the conversation into something else.

[Nataly171]

Solar panels are required to beat the game so they should be a dependency somewhere. That's how it has always worked in Factorio before.

I think this kind of comes and goes, there was a while where it wasn't true, then a few version back they added a bunch of prerequisites for science packs and stuff... I don't remember details, but while this hadn't always historically been the case it seems to be trending that way.

This is interesting, I didn't know this. I only started playing a little bit before 2.0 came out so I'm not familiar with the history of the tech tree.

[computeraddict]

Oh *no*. Please tell me no one has done that... someone has, hasn't they. Also, I didn't realize that was a new technology.

https://youtu.be/jFC7ez1bgnQ?si=dlFOuLaYufKDE7pd

[Panzerknacker]

Man I already did that before him, with the added complexity of using only the strictly required techs. Can lookup my save if you want.

Ontopic:
Summary of my view:
Regardless of what other people say, it's clear that the current design philosopy of the dev team is being able to plan the game through the tech tree from the start. This is what the devs have said and that's why in 1.1 and 2.0 it is true that every technology required to beat the game IS a hard prerequisite for the final game-winning technology. Since in Space Age solar energy IS a hard requirement to beat the game, it is clearly an oversight that it is not a hard prerequisite somewhere is the tech tree.

After looking at the tech tree again, the most suitable place for it would be making it a requirement for the Space science pack because this is exactly the moment where you can't be without it anymore (the space platform with it's other components can still be built without power).

In my opinion tho, this would still be only a 'quick fix' as I would prefer being able to play for longer without solar energy, so therefor my earlier suggestion here: viewtopic.php?t=119792

[mmmPI]

Ontopic:
Summary of my view:

It's not obvious it's on topic because your proposition is to lock solar pannel behind a different tech AND for different reasons than what the OP is about.

I still have hard time following why you think it's related, it seems to me that 1)"using only mandadory technology as a challenge run" and 2)"not using solar pannel to beat the game because i like steam" are 2 different goals which would benefit having thread named after that since it's the suggestion.

I believe your aggressive pushing of your other suggestion is detrimental to both, in that instead of explaning better the "why", and explaining your personnal preference/ motivation for one or the other run to explain the added value you see in them, you seem to only focus on the "how". And in doing so commiting mistake or approximation regarding how to start power on Vulcanus, or how to empty the first barrel of water that ended up discussed on this thread and not on the other one where they would make more sense.

[Panzerknacker]

*personal attack*

Plz stay ontopic

[mmmPI]

*personal attack*

Plz stay ontopic

I do not see anything that could be taken as a personnal attack, i thought your repeated use of acronyms like "gtfo" meant that you were accepting a certain level of familiarity in the langage and have hard time believing you would feel attacked.

My point is that if you were to explain with more details what you see as value for the gameplay in your suggestions, devs who knows more about the game could find a good implementation for it if it sound interesting. Whereas instead if you only suggest "how" you want things changed, it may end up look like an inconsistent list of disconnected proposals, some based on lack of knowledge or misguided assumptions about the game.

I think it was on topic to try and point out that the suggestion you keep posting about specifically making a boiler available in space but only accepting nuclear fuel because you think it would be cool ( sic) doesn't adress the goal stated in the OP of "not confusing new players" , it serve a different goal. And it does so poorly as it doesn't address the first barrel of water to empty in space, or in vulcanus. This in order to highlight any potential confusion between different proposition that serve different purpose.

I believe it is clarified now that your proposition is different in nature and goal and hence could be ignored from now on regarding this particular topic, but it was important to do so nonetheless.

I understand that there is a second goal, which is the possibility to have a self-imposed challenge where a player would try to beat the game without researching any "optionnal" tech and currently that include solar pannel, which makes the self imposed challenge impossible. I believe it would be more helpful to make that the title of a new suggestion, now that it is seemingly established that "rocket silo" isn't the proper technology to use as a prerequisite but rather "space science".

However the fact that you only changed your mind about which tech would be the most suitable for your proposition, after your little tantrum makes me believe that the title of the topic should be about the "why", the goal you pursue, because maybe you will look at the tech tree once again and change your mind again in the future when you realize yet another technology is "more suitable".