Change huge asteroid explosive resistance to 100%

[konage]

I see the same: dozen of hours and 20 round trips without any damage, then suddenly one hit with my much smaller prom ship as well, but I was never able to see the reason.
When I switched to the platform one second after the alert, there was no asteroid any more, so it wasn't a huge asteroid. Not a single asteroid nearby, so the defenses aren't overwhelmed in general. The platform reported damage, so it was asteroid damage and not splash/aoe damage from a too near exploding explosive rocket. There was never an autosave near enough to reproduce. No ammo shortage alert or visualization.

There is a mod for this , it pauses the game as soon as a platform takes damage, so you can investigate : https://mods.factorio.com/mod/freeze-frame

So in my opinion, changing asteroid resistance isn't the solution. This isn't a solution, it's a workaround. I assume a better solution is changed targeting: prioritize near asteroids, ignore hitpoints/damage ratio. However I don't know the side effects of this, this needs thorough testing work.

I agree the whole reasonning is about turret priority, the change of resistance supposedly would be an indirect way to achieve it.

Also one other solution for the railgun problem, if you wanna stay unmodded, but still want a relatively optimal ship, is to place some q1 quality railguns BEHIND your q4/q5 railguns. They will only shoot if an asteroid gets too close. They will kill some of your stuff, but its better than the huge asteroid hitting you. yes, its very cursed

It's hard to believe this is necessary in an optimal ship. It sound like a fail-safe for a situation that doesn't occur if you have enough railguns in the first place. If the defense fails occasionnaly it isn't optimal to me, it is insuffucient.

ok buddy, when you make a UPS optimal prom ship, get back to me

[mmmPI]

ok buddy, when you make a UPS optimal prom ship, get back to me

When i look at the ship you posted on reddit, it doesn't feature the second layer of low quality railgun designed to pierce thru the higher quality level of railguns in case an huge asteroid isn't destroyed : https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... biter_egg/

From there i have hard time believing the advice you give is genuine and not an exageration, or i would have to understand the ship you posted is suboptimal. I think it's not only semantic, if the ship occasionnaly fails, it's not "optimal" , the defense is too thin. I have yet to see a case where someone do use that second layer of railgun for the allegded problem you mention.

[konage]

ok buddy, when you make a UPS optimal prom ship, get back to me

When i look at the ship you posted on reddit, it doesn't feature the second layer of low quality railgun designed to pierce thru the higher quality level of railguns in case an huge asteroid isn't destroyed : https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... biter_egg/

From there i have hard time believing the advice you give is genuine and not an exageration, or i would have to understand the ship you posted is suboptimal. I think it's not only semantic, if the ship occasionnaly fails, it's not "optimal" , the defense is too thin. I have yet to see a case where someone do use that second layer of railgun for the allegded problem you mention.

ok buddy, when you even attempt to make a UPS optimal prom ship, get back to me

[mmmPI]

ok buddy, when you even attempt to make a UPS optimal prom ship, get back to me

I understand you don't want to argue, but the nature of your dismissal just goes to show that you easily consider the matter very niche and requiring expertise, only valid in a precise scenario, the UPS optimisation, and yet you propose to change the resistance of asteroid to 100% for everyone, when really what you describe is turret priority.

I've been tyring to reach solar system edge with only rockets and laser, it's fun and would not even be something to attempt with your suggestion which would have questionnable UPS impact, since there were some changes in the game since this discussion was started ... A constructive way to participate could be some feedback on your mod , a demonstration of the UPS improvement you claim it would provide.

Not even asking for an actual ship with 2 layers of railguns of different quality with the second to act as fail-safe for the first one. I think it was just a joke at this point.

[konage]

ok buddy, when you even attempt to make a UPS optimal prom ship, get back to me

I understand you don't want to argue, but the nature of your dismissal just goes to show that you easily consider the matter very niche and requiring expertise, only valid in a precise scenario, the UPS optimisation, and yet you propose to change the resistance of asteroid to 100% for everyone, when really what you describe is turret priority.

I've been tyring to reach solar system edge with only rockets and laser, it's fun and would not even be something to attempt with your suggestion which would have questionnable UPS impact, since there were some changes in the game since this discussion was started ... A constructive way to participate could be some feedback on your mod , a demonstration of the UPS improvement you claim it would provide.

Not even asking for an actual ship with 2 layers of railguns of different quality with the second to act as fail-safe for the first one. I think it was just a joke at this point.

Already I made a mod that doesn't change your beloved 99% explosive resistance. But of course you keep arguing about this as per usual. I explained this before 20 times to you re: why I mentioned resistance indirectly for turret priority, instead of turret priority directly.

The two layers of railguns isn't a joke suggestion. I won't bother trying to explain to you why a ship that NEVER takes damage is suboptimal UPS-wise or otherwise. In short: (a) you want to destroy asteroids as close to the collectors as possible, which makes it more likely to take damage, (b) you want to maximize the number of collectors which compete for space with railguns, which also makes it more likely to take damage. Getting a ship to be 100% safe, the way the algorithm for railguns currently works, requires you to go way beyond what you should need. You can have a ship that takes 0 damage for 200 hours, destroying billions of huge asteroids, only to then get unlucky with the railgun targeting priority and the health of those asteroids and one sneaks through. Are you gonna double the number of railguns? Go from 3-1 collector-railgun ratio to 3:2? 2:1? Instead you can just add q1 railguns behind which does not affect the very important asteroid collector "real estate".

Even from a non UPS-standpoint, you can understand at least point (b), because it gives more throughput, more asteroids collected per trip.

The mod removes the health issue, so there is no need to change resistances after all. When I first made the post I didn't expect it to be that easy to change it, so I recommended the resistances. There is no need to demonstrate UPS impact of the mod. "Definitionally", it makes ships less prone to destruction, so you can get away with fewer turrets, so you can have more throughput.

I'm sure my explanations again, still aren't sufficient for you, you'll want me to do 100 tests and explain 100 hours more. Which is why ->

Get back to me when you've made even an attempt at a UPS-optimal prom ship

[mmmPI]

Already I made a mod that doesn't change your beloved 99% explosive resistance. But of course you keep arguing about this as per usual. I explained this before 20 times to you re: why I mentioned resistance indirectly for turret priority, instead of turret priority directly.

"changing resistance isn't a solution it's a workaround, what you really want is a change in priority" => I'm arguing this because that's my opinion and it also appears to be literally is the thing that you are saying, you explained why you mentionned resistance indirectly, that is what a workaround is.

The two layers of railguns isn't a joke suggestion.

ok

[ldmccartney]

Also one other solution for the railgun problem, if you wanna stay unmodded, but still want a relatively optimal ship, is to place some q1 quality railguns BEHIND your q4/q5 railguns. They will only shoot if an asteroid gets too close. They will kill some of your stuff, but its better than the huge asteroid hitting you. yes, its very cursed

It's hard to believe this is necessary in an optimal ship. It sound like a fail-safe for a situation that doesn't occur if you have enough railguns in the first place. If the defense fails occasionnaly it isn't optimal to me, it is insuffucient.

What you describe as an optimal ship is based on mechanics designed by the developers of this game.

Konage is describing a situation where the game engine is making decisions in a way that is non-optimal. This is also uncontrollable by the user. Your solution is to just over-engineer to account for poor targeting by turrets. While that is absolutely something you can (and probably have) to do in the games current state, I don't think raising this odd behavior to the developers is a bad idea.

Lastly, I get the sense you're just arguing pedantically for the sake of pendantics. Leave it alone, the devs will choose to address this or not, regardless of your opinion. Just cause you don't like his suggestion doesn't mean it's not worth looking at. The point of a bug report is to point out something for changing. Any ideas around solutioning is just charity work on the person reporting the bug, and the developers can do whatever they want with that recommendation, but more than anything you shouldn't discourage people from reporting things like this.

[mmmPI]

What you describe as an optimal ship is based on mechanics designed by the developers of this game.

Yeah you could do a double layer of rail gun with the second one designed to pierce thru the first one, this was a very serious design at the time, for sure, there are countless of examples.
One may say, it was even impossible before 2.1 to have a proper promethium ship if you were not doing this. Glad this was changed , for the record though it wasn't done putting the asteroid resistance to explosions to 100%.

Lastly, I get the sense you're just arguing pedantically for the sake of pendantics

I'm not sure which words were too complicated and gave that impression, i can confirm it is an impression, i don't try to be pedantic, rather pedagogue.

[konage]

What you describe as an optimal ship is based on mechanics designed by the developers of this game.

Yeah you could do a double layer of rail gun with the second one designed to pierce thru the first one, this was a very serious design at the time, for sure, there are countless of examples.
One may say, it was even impossible before 2.1 to have a proper promethium ship if you were not doing this. Glad this was changed , for the record though it wasn't done putting the asteroid resistance to explosions to 100%.

Lastly, I get the sense you're just arguing pedantically for the sake of pendantics

I'm not sure which words were too complicated and gave that impression, i can confirm it is an impression, i don't try to be pedantic, rather pedagogue.

You have 0 idea about promethium ships. It was a serious suggestion, and yes someone I know did do it. It was worth it for megabasing in terms of UPS optimizing. But keep being a spiteful pedantic know-it-all

And guess what. It got changed cause I made a mod for it, and then I pushed for it, by making a poll for 80 different changes and 50+ people replied, and I sent genuine suggestions to the devs and it got changed without your precious nuking of asteroids, for which you only argued just cause the devs originally arbitrarily decided for 99% instead of 100%... could have easily gone the other way and you wouldnt have asked for 99%...

But hey, maybe you'll contribute in the next 10000 posts

[konage]

Also one other solution for the railgun problem, if you wanna stay unmodded, but still want a relatively optimal ship, is to place some q1 quality railguns BEHIND your q4/q5 railguns. They will only shoot if an asteroid gets too close. They will kill some of your stuff, but its better than the huge asteroid hitting you. yes, its very cursed

It's hard to believe this is necessary in an optimal ship. It sound like a fail-safe for a situation that doesn't occur if you have enough railguns in the first place. If the defense fails occasionnaly it isn't optimal to me, it is insuffucient.

What you describe as an optimal ship is based on mechanics designed by the developers of this game.

Konage is describing a situation where the game engine is making decisions in a way that is non-optimal. This is also uncontrollable by the user. Your solution is to just over-engineer to account for poor targeting by turrets. While that is absolutely something you can (and probably have) to do in the games current state, I don't think raising this odd behavior to the developers is a bad idea.

Lastly, I get the sense you're just arguing pedantically for the sake of pendantics. Leave it alone, the devs will choose to address this or not, regardless of your opinion. Just cause you don't like his suggestion doesn't mean it's not worth looking at. The point of a bug report is to point out something for changing. Any ideas around solutioning is just charity work on the person reporting the bug, and the developers can do whatever they want with that recommendation, but more than anything you shouldn't discourage people from reporting things like this.

They did fix the targeting problem a few weeks ago, after I re-suggested it. It was a one line change, which I had a mod for before. Don't respond to the other guy again, you'll keep going back and forth for 20 posts lol

[konage]

"It's hard to believe this is necessary in an optimal ship. It sound like a fail-safe for a situation that doesn't occur if you have enough railguns in the first place. If the defense fails occasionnaly it isn't optimal to me, it is insuffucient."

Even your own wording proves this was a serious suggestion by me.

Hmm... what is more UPS-optimal on a ship??? Having less collectors, or having an extra railgun here and there for which the ONLY negative is slightly more weight on the ship, making it slower. Gee idk, maybe if you ever designed one for megabasing, it would be 100% obvious. Not 99%, 100%.

[Panzerknacker]

It's always the same with mmmPI, he keeps just spamming with nonsense arguments. He must have too much time at hand.

So I will hereby without even reading the thread declare that you are right and he is wrong, that will win us the time battle.

[mmmPI]

"It's hard to believe this is necessary in an optimal ship. It sound like a fail-safe for a situation that doesn't occur if you have enough railguns in the first place. If the defense fails occasionnaly it isn't optimal to me, it is insuffucient."
Even your own wording proves this was a serious suggestion by me.
Hmm... what is more UPS-optimal on a ship??? Having less collectors, or having an extra railgun here and there for which the ONLY negative is slightly more weight on the ship, making it slower. Gee idk, maybe if you ever designed one for megabasing, it would be 100% obvious. Not 99%, 100%.

You got my wording wrong, it's hard to believe = i do not believe making 2 row of rails gun made any kind of sense, not back then nor ever. I feel it's kind of a grotesque exageration where you had a spaceship that was ooccasionnaly failing and instead of having a tad more denser rail guns in front, to make sure they had time to "idle" a little instead of always being busy with a new target, which would have allowed them to target the damaged huge asteroids, you suggested to put 2 row of them as it if was an actual solution, with the second piercing trhu the first one.

Hopefully it had already moved away from the idea of making asteroid immune to explosion. Because that would have been a very indirect way to have your ship fixed.

[konage]

"It's hard to believe this is necessary in an optimal ship. It sound like a fail-safe for a situation that doesn't occur if you have enough railguns in the first place. If the defense fails occasionnaly it isn't optimal to me, it is insuffucient."
Even your own wording proves this was a serious suggestion by me.
Hmm... what is more UPS-optimal on a ship??? Having less collectors, or having an extra railgun here and there for which the ONLY negative is slightly more weight on the ship, making it slower. Gee idk, maybe if you ever designed one for megabasing, it would be 100% obvious. Not 99%, 100%.

You got my wording wrong, it's hard to believe = i do not believe making 2 row of rails gun made any kind of sense, not back then nor ever. I feel it's kind of a grotesque exageration where you had a spaceship that was ooccasionnaly failing and instead of having a tad more denser rail guns in front, to make sure they had time to "idle" a little instead of always being busy with a new target, which would have allowed them to target the damaged huge asteroids, you suggested to put 2 row of them as it if was an actual solution, with the second piercing trhu the first one.

Hopefully it had already moved away from the idea of making asteroid immune to explosion. Because that would have been a very indirect way to have your ship fixed.

I already explained why as hard as it is for you to believe it, or you definitely do not believe it, it WAS BETTER in terms of UPS. Where is your UPS-optimal prom ship man? Let's go back to that.

By all means join the two megabase discords that exist, and ask the rest of the people there. But fwiw, I know more about prom ships than most even there. and I had the best performing prom ship for over a year. Someone else beat it a couple months ago

The real answer is you dont like it AESTHETICALLY

[mmmPI]

I already explained why as hard as it is for you to believe it, or you definitely do not believe it, it WAS BETTER in terms of UPS. Where is your UPS-optimal prom ship man? Let's go back to that.

Better than what ? i have never seen such ship with 2 row of railguns, NEVER, so i'm hard pressed to find any UPS related evaluation on how it would be BETTER, but by all means if you do have some please post them in there, don't let that precious knowledge only on discord

[konage]

I already explained why as hard as it is for you to believe it, or you definitely do not believe it, it WAS BETTER in terms of UPS. Where is your UPS-optimal prom ship man? Let's go back to that.

Better than what ? i have never seen such ship with 2 row of railguns, NEVER, so i'm hard pressed to find any UPS related evaluation on how it would be BETTER, but by all means if you do have some please post them in there, don't let that precious knowledge only on discord

I already said better than what. Better than having more railguns in the front, WHICH REMOVES COLLECTORS, which is the whole point of doing the trip. Why do you think its worse? Give me YOUR UPS-related evaluation

[konage]

I already explained why as hard as it is for you to believe it, or you definitely do not believe it, it WAS BETTER in terms of UPS. Where is your UPS-optimal prom ship man? Let's go back to that.

Better than what ? i have never seen such ship with 2 row of railguns, NEVER, so i'm hard pressed to find any UPS related evaluation on how it would be BETTER, but by all means if you do have some please post them in there, don't let that precious knowledge only on discord

actually you know what. I'm not getting debate perverted from you again. Should have never removed the block

Good luck finding someone else.

Thank me in your next post for bringing the devs attention to quite a few UPS optimizations you probably dont know about... not that they necessarily wouldnt have fixed them anyways sometime, but hey, at least I contribute more than debating everyone on forums

[mmmPI]

I already said better than what. Better than having more railguns in the front, WHICH REMOVES COLLECTORS, which is the whole point of doing the trip. Why do you think its worse? Give me YOUR UPS-related evaluation

Don't you get the point of showing the actual measurement ? Show them if you want me to not "believe" but just see for myself, but otherwise this is just a claim, alledged authority or not without data it's not convincing. You say 2 row of railguns would be better than more collector in the front for UPS , just show me the result that leads to this conclusion, which ships were used to conclude this ? That should easily ground the debate in more rationnal arguments.

Again there were several changes in the game since the begining of the thread related to railguns speed animation, targetting interruptions and sp on. I'm glad your problem is fixed, and i understand you think it's pointless to argue again, but overall when looking at the incomprehension generated by your first post, i felt it's you who need to be thankful that other players tried to go past the title and the explanations which were "ship will take less damage".