Factorio Forums

Serenity wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:14 pm I downloaded a mod with the new crafting recipes and updated my builds

Purple science is basically what Yellow Science was before. You can insert from one rail assembler into two science assemblers and in turn use one iron stick assembler for two rail assemblers. That makes for a nice build. However you need 14 science assemblers for 1.5/s. So that makes the build slightly asymmetrical (3 * 4 and then half a unit again).
Maybe you are locked into certain ways with the direction insertion, but it does look nice

Yellow science has a nice complexity with the ingredients. Green circuits, batteries, iron, steel, blue circuits, low density structures. However the build is extremely simple. I just re-purposed my robot line. Direct insertion from engines into electrical engines since they have the same crafting time. Robot frames need 20 seconds and science needs 21. So you can also just direct insert those

Good observations from practice. Do note that some of the complexity of the Utility science pack is "hidden" in the Refinery.

Ekevoo wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:07 am

DaveMcW wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 3:04 pm You should allow a player to be the rocket payload.

...then, if you click "Continue" in the victory screen, you drop-off in a far-off spot in the map with your inventory only. Preferably without a way of returning.
https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/NewGamePlus

This is great idea! Please consider doing something like this. The discusion here tends to focus on the science only (quite undestandably, since it is the main theme of the original post). But the victory conditions and the gameplay AFTER launching the rocket are also very important. The victory conditions give a lot of meaning to the game for many players. Please dont underestimate that. Maybe you could return to this question in future FF, concerning campaign maybe? But dont let this idea die. Do you consider it possible? There SHOULD be something interesting, probably game-changing happening after lauching the rocket.

About the names of the science packs: I love them! Except for 2 small things:

Serenity wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 2:43 am Someone made a good point about the name of purple science. It should be "Chemistry". All the other packs are nouns. Chemical is an adjective. After the other FFF about consistent naming in all areas this should be obvious

+1
By this logic, there's one more thing to change. The green one should be "Logistics" Science Pack instead of "Logistic" (one letter makes a difference). But I agree with you, this is a good idea. Could those 2 names be changed please so they are both nouns?

Oh my, this FFF is amazing! This was full of so much more cool information than most FFFs! Thank you very much. Here are my comments:
The postcard is really great, and the new names for the Science Packs are much, much better!
It is good that Military shows up before Chemical Science Packs (the order in the crafting menu), since the diagram in FFF #159 hinted that the Military Science Pack was in the same tier as the Logistic Science Pack.
And I'm glad that the Production and Utility packs don't overlap so much. In 0.16, the High-Tech Science Pack was treated as a "Science Pack 4" since it was required in just about everything. I'm glad that the Utility Science Pack is now focused on utility researches.
I think it's a good thing that the military technology upgrades are consolidated: a lot of these weapons are based on the same principles and so should be upgraded in the same way.
I find it interesting that the Rocket Silo no longer requires Military Science Packs to acquire. I actually think this is wrong.

nosports wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 4:20 pm as i currently see it the rocket is just a beefed up version of the missle, so no problem if its attached to the military branch of research....

I believe the Rocket Silo technology should require the military Rocket Launcher technology, because they really do operate on the same principles. Also it would require the player to have every type of science pack in order to win. Although I do think that Military Science packs should be optional except for the prerequisites to the Rocket Silo.
And the new victory condition should be easier for no players, although I have not run into that problem.

I too am skeptical of the 30 items required for the Production Science Pack. I always felt that 30 was too much. Maybe 15 or so would be better. I don't mind the rails. I'm perfectly fine with rails; I always automate them early anyway as soon as I unlock trains. But 30 items is a bit too much in my opinion.

Avezo wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:35 pm - I also REALLY think you should consider using fluids as ingredients in science packs, reasoning as above - encouraging player to have proper delivery system, plus I just think it would be more interesting. I.e. Instead of using solid fuel in blue/chemical recipe, make it just use petrol gas? Easier to set up than red circuits, so maybe replace red circuits with just greens, or pipes? Yeah, pipes would make sense, it's 'chemical' science pack after all.

I think this is a good idea since fluids are in my opinion a bit underused (especially lubricant) but I can't think of any good fluid to require to the Chemical Science pack, because it would need to be available in large quantities without cracking. Solid fuel is good because it can be made from any of the 3 crude oil products.

One question: how does the laser turret shooting speed work since the turrets now fire continuous beams? And why doesn't the Laser Turret Shooting Speed research also boost the other types of energy weapons?

To answer the question in the FFF about seeing the "no satellite message," I only ever saw it once.

QGamer wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:22 pm ...
I too am skeptical of the 30 items required for the Production Science Pack. I always felt that 30 was too much. Maybe 15 or so would be better. I don't mind the rails. I'm perfectly fine with rails; I always automate them early anyway as soon as I unlock trains. But 30 items is a bit too much in my opinion.

Avezo wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:35 pm - I also REALLY think you should consider using fluids as ingredients in science packs,...


One question: how does the laser turret shooting speed work since the turrets now fire continuous beams? And why doesn't the Laser Turret Shooting Speed research also boost the other types of energy weapons?

- If my tests, math and memory is right, the 30 items per 21 seconds means you need roughly 2 assembling machines making rails for 3 assembling machines making production science packs, and 1 assembling machine of iron sticks added to that, resulting in a basic ratio of 3:2:1. That's not so much.
- I admit did not test too thoroughly if you can get 3:1 or higher ratio of production packs vs. rails with speed modules in rail assembling machine.
- Belting 30 items per 21 seconds is still 1.43 items/second per assembling machine. As someone counted above, you can feed quite a bunch this way.
- Even if it was not trivial, it is a high tier recipe, it does not need to be super simple. I would still claim that if you're making science in non-insane numbers, you will be more than fine with belt throughput, regardless which option you choose (direct insertion or rails on belts)
- If it's not trivial for 3000SPM or any similar number in thousands or even hundreds of science packs per minute, that's understandable. Getting 3000 SPM is insane, you do that because you want to challenge yourself, I wouldn't want that to be easy.
TL;DR I think it's not nearly as tough as it looks from the numbers alone.

Fluids as ingredients make some sense but it's super ugly in the crafting menu because that science pack immediately gets red background because you can't hand-craft it. If all of the higher tier science packs had that, it'd kind of look fine. Having it on just some is a bit disturbing and I'm not sure if it actually achieves much. Having it on the intermediates the science packs require (the Utility one in electric engines and processing units) I think is enough. If you want a comparison, you get the 3:2:1 or whatever challenge for Production, you get the assembly line with pipes challenge in Utility.

The laser turret shooting speed actually does influence PLD atm, for some reason it doesn't work on Distractors. Questionnable whether it should, will consider, discuss and solve. Good point, thanks!

If you can live with non-perfect ratios it's really simple:
Undergrounding the stone is not really needed. You could move the belts down by one instead. I found it a bit prettier this way.

V453000 wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:08 pm The laser turret shooting speed actually does influence PLD atm, for some reason it doesn't work on Distractors. Questionnable whether it should, will consider, discuss and solve. Good point, thanks!

Thank you for your reply.
I would argue that the PLD, Laser Turret, and Distractor Robots should all be influenced by the same tech because they are made of the same basic components (laser gun, targeting system, frame). The Destroyer, on the other hand, is not the same because it fires a different type of beam, but I still believe that all 4 should be influenced by the same research upgrades because it fits with the Energy/Physical/Explosive/Flammable divide among the weapons.
i.e. Energy Weapons Firerate research should boost the Laser Turret, PLD, Distractor Robots, and Defender Robots.
On a similar note, if you're rebalancing the weapon upgrade technologies, please show the shotgun a little love. (See viewtopic.php?f=16&t=55631)

V453000 wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:08 pmFluids as ingredients make some sense but it's super ugly in the crafting menu because that science pack immediately gets red background because you can't hand-craft it. If all of the higher tier science packs had that, it'd kind of look fine. Having it on just some is a bit disturbing and I'm not sure if it actually achieves much. Having it on the intermediates the science packs require (the Utility one in electric engines and processing units) I think is enough. If you want a comparison, you get the 3:2:1 or whatever challenge for Production, you get the assembly line with pipes challenge in Utility.

But UI is being worked on atm, if there ever will be a time to tweak that red background, it's now.

Klonan wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 1:47 pm https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-275

Fantastic postcard!

I LOVE THE NEW SCIENCE CHANGES!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I think that adding pipes to Logistics Science would be great!
Good step up from red to green (needs 3 ingredients instead of 2) and I like that I would have pipes in place for oil refining.
Is .17 out yet???? XP I'm super excited for it!!

This FFF reads very well and sounds like a lot of thought went into it. Generally it's rare that I read update notes and think: Yep, that is exactly what we need. But in this case, really makes me want to start a new world again just to try the progression again.

Suggestion to consider for 0.17 Science Changes:

TLDR
They basically made science cost about 15% less per pack, no oil and about 1.7% less total res compared to 0.16.
The changes I propose would only change things slightly to about 14% less per pack, no oil and about 0.53% more total res.
Its more about the way things are structured and introduced to the player because I think those things I added are stuff you will want to build anyway, and it fits the themes of the packs and a plus is that it makes the numbers add up nicely.

1 x Red Automation science pack 1 should require 1 pipes, 1 gears, and 1 electronic circuits.

• This will get you ready for assembly, power production, and electric power poles.
• 4 iron, 1.5 copper = 5.5 total res per pack
• Requires 11 new assembly machines (stone furnace, copper wire, wood, small electric poles, assembly machine 1, wooden chest, steam engine, boiler), 2 new smelting areas (iron, copper), and 4 new mining areas (iron, coal, copper, stone).

1 x Green Logistic science pack 2 should remain the same with 1 transport belt, and 1 inserter (1 EC).

• This will get you ready for expansion.
• 5.5 iron, 1.5 copper = 7 total res per pack
• Requires 10 new assembly machines (splitter, underground belt, assembly machine 2, fast inserter, filter inserter, long handed inserter, iron chest, electric mining drill).

2 x Black Military science pack 3 should require 1 piercing rounds magazine, 1 grenade, 1 wall, and 1 repair pack (1 EC).

• This will get you ready for attacking and defending small waves, setting up a defensive line, and gives you the ability to maintain it.
• 20 iron, 8 copper, 10 coal, 10 stone = (48 / 2) = 24 res per pack
• Requires 13 new assembly machines (ammo, turret, fast transport belt, fast splitter, fast underground belt, storage tank, medium electric pole, big electric pole, steel chest), and 2 new smelting areas (stone brick, steel).

2 x Blue Chemical science pack 4 should require 1 solid fuel, 3 advanced circuits (6 EC), 2 engine units, 1 red wire, and 1 green wire (2 EC).

• This will get you ready for power production expansion, transportation and circuit networks.
• 26 iron, 19 copper, 3 coal, 74 crude oil = (122 / 2 ) = 61 total res per peck | (48 / 2) = 24 res per pack, no oil
• Requires 12 new assembly machines (underground pipes, explosives, cliff explosives, cannon shell, flamethrower ammo, stack inserter), pump jack, crude oil, oil refinery, and 4 new chemical plant (plastic, heavy oil cracking, light oil cracking).

3 x Purple Production science pack 5 should remain the same with 30 rail, 1 electric furnace ((5 AC, 10 EC / 3) = 3.333 EC) 1 productivity module ((5 AC, 10+5 EC) = (15 EC / 3) = 5 EC)

• This will get you ready for trains, external smelting, and boosts production.
• 157 iron, 57.5 copper, 10 coal, 35 stone, 222 crude oil = (481.5 / 3) = 160.5 total res per pack | (259.5 / 3) = 86.5 res per pack, no oil
• Requires 9 new assembly machines (iron stick, rail signal, rail chain signal, substation, storage chest, passive provider chest).

3 x Yellow Utility science pack 6 should remain the same with 2 processing units ((2 AC, 4+20 EC) = (24 EC / 3) = 8 EC), 1 flying robot frame ((2+3 EC) = (5 EC / 3 ) = 1.666 EC), and 3 low density structure.

• This will get you ready for power armor, robots, and logistic networks.
• 99 iron, 149 copper, 11.5 coal, 347 crude oil = (606.6 / 3) = 202.2 total res per pack | (259.5 / 3) = 86.5 res per pack, no oil
• Requires 10 new assembly machines (electric engine unit, express transport belt, express splitter, express underground belt), 4 new chemical plants (battery, sulfur, sulfuric acid, lubricant, requester chest, buffer chest, active provider chest).

1,000 x White Space science pack 7 should remain the same with, 1 satellite ((5+1500 EC) = (1,505 EC / 1,000) = 1.505 EC), 1,000 rocket control unit (10,000+5,000+4,000+20,000 EC) = (39,000 EC /1,000) = 39 EC), 1000 low density structure, and 1000 rocket fuel.

• 57 iron, 101 copper, 10 coal, 324 crude oil = 492 total res per pack | = 168 res per pack, no oil
• Requires 7 new assembly machines (concrete, speed module, rocket silo, accumulator, solar panel).

The cost for making each science pack once 1+1+1+8+25+29+40,505 EC = 40,570 EC

• (81,140 iron, 60,855 copper)

The cost for making 1 of each science pack 1+1+(1 / 2 = 0.5)+(8 / 2 = 4) +(3.333+5)+(8+1.666)+(1.505+39) = 65.005 EC

• (130.01 iron 12.54%, 97.5075 copper 9.41% of 1,036.2 total res per pack | iron 32.46% copper 24.34% of 400.5 res per pack, no oil)

The cost for making 1,000 of each science pack (1*1,000)+(1*1,000)+(1*500)+(8*500)+(25*333.333)+(29*333.333)+(1,505+39,000) = 65,005 EC

• (130,010 iron, 97,507.5 copper)

I'd really like to see some nuclear product required for one of the sciences. Even just raw U-235 or U-238. Would encourage the user to use all facets of the game.

Serenity wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:38 pm If you can live with non-perfect ratios it's really simple:

Undergrounding the stone is not really needed. You could move the belts down by one instead. I found it a bit prettier this way.

If you can make a nice looking blueprint for all-in-one-1000-science would be nice my wife is already screaching her head how to do it

We use atm a similar one to this: https://factorioprints.com/view/-Kv98Ua8jl-tzglA7cp6

I have a design already crafted but it is not in the blueprint pattern you show. in that blueprints pattern (12beacon) craft rails at a line next to purple assemblers and pass them under beacons with underground belts. so you shall have one line of rail assemblers and one line for purple science assemblers. 1k purple means 10k rail without prod modules and around 7.5k with full prod modules on purple sciences. you need half of that (around 3.8k) of stone/steel and a little less of iron (pipes accept prod modules). pass the rail resources under rail assemblers for second set of blue belt because 1blue belt can carry 2.4kpm and you shall need 3.8kpm of stone/steel (more than 1.5 belt). pipe is easy because 1 iron means 2 pipe (2.8 if full prod modules set), craft next to that line and pass it to rail production with 2 belts.

try this and it should work. other ingredients are similar but very easy because a blue belt can carry them easily.

it is not going to be compact but others obviously claim it is trivial and unnecessary

I have no idea why people are afraid of bacons and oil... it is tasty when together

Masterfox wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 2:55 pm The only thing I would disagree with here are the productivity modules for production packs: All the other things are going to be used sooner or later, but it is very well possible to never use prod modules, so this feels like you are trying to force us to use them(especially Level 1, which I never saw used anywhere).

Personally, I couldn't imagine speed running without prod module 1. They are extremely good value to increase science in a mid-game base.

Something cool I noticed about direct insertion ratios on purple science. 30/21 rails is a mess, but it exactly cancels into clean ratios if you have speed penalties from 2x prod modules (in assembly machine 2), or 4x prod modules. I still haven't decided what shape I'd build it all in though. would be satisfying to get right, but I think I would go for something easier to get done in straight lines. Similar to red circuits where I can do 1:6 with direct insertion, but I don't.

ske wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:52 am Very good writeup. Thanks for this FFF.

I want to start this particular comment by agreeing with ske: five years of weekly development updates and discussion is truly impressive, a feat I'm pretty sure hasn't been matched by any other dev, even internally. Keep it up!

V453000 wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:49 am So in short you say that if our decision is not in line with your personal opinion, then it means that we are detached from our community?

Did you really think it was just me?

Just read the FFFs

Just read our responses to them. If, in general, you don't like them, there isn't any point to doing FFFs at all - maybe the feedback gets to feel like Chinese water torture at times. Of course, if you did that, what you'd get instead is a backlash tsunami at the big reveal, see Artifact and Diablo Immortal. However, the torture would only really come to an end if you not just "read" and "hear" but actually listen and try to understand what it is that is bothering people. I've noticed you haven't added much to the production rail discussion, for example - I'll jump back into that in a moment.

Mike5000 wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 10:33 am

V453000 wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:49 am Please stop accusing us of awful things because of minor disagreements.

That's 27 pages of "minor disagreement" which only wound down when it became clear that Wube couldn't care less.

And I didn't jump in myself until Page 23.

Ferlonas wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:26 pm There are few posts in this thread that are hammering on anyone or just purely negative. The majority of posts are reasonable discussion, with various over- and undertones, as is to be expected in a passionate discussion. Personally, I am a bit miffed at how V453000 responded to some of the posts, not even attempting a discussion but just basically trying to shut them down with one sentence. It's as if I had responded to your post by only saying "You're reading that wrong."
That is not very constructive, and it encourages further negativity. Discussions in a forum are similar - albeit more delicate due to the medium - to arguments in real life. If you don't take a step back to analyse the other person's points and at least make an effort to respond in a factual manner, you risk the argument escalating to an emotional level that you can't recover from. And just abandoning it there will keep the negative emotions for the next time something comes up (see the way FFF 266 transferred into this one)

That was exactly my point: Brushing off the concerns of the community as overreacting is the very last thing you should do.

Actually, second last; the very last thing is virtue signaling, e.g. "I would add I'm probably one of the most honest, understanding, and fairest persons you have ever interacted with" <- the guy who sent me that in a PM is probably just barely smart enough not to do so in public. The point is that he was dumb enough to send it at all.

RockDeicide wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 9:31 am featherwinglove, quit acting like you represent entire audience, I'm a part of the latter, but, as far as I am concerned, Wube only improved the connection between the game and me. For me, there were no problematic changes FFF#266 whatsoever as they all go well with my play-style that still uses a number of mods. Devs have to make the game for everyone, not just you.

This is curious for a first post. I've actually made a few resembling these myself, although usually in the form of "Just because you hate this mechanic doesn't mean everyone should be deprived of it." I try to be more diplomatic, but, as you can plainly see, I'll blow the gasket if I think it's necessary. Just remember, you never get a second chance to make a first impression. I think I could have benefited from remembering that more consistently myself.

V453000 wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 4:08 pm

QGamer wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 3:22 pm ...
I too am skeptical of the 30 items required for the Production Science Pack. I always felt that 30 was too much. Maybe 15 or so would be better. I don't mind the rails. I'm perfectly fine with rails; I always automate them early anyway as soon as I unlock trains. But 30 items is a bit too much in my opinion.

Avezo wrote: Fri Dec 28, 2018 6:35 pm - I also REALLY think you should consider using fluids as ingredients in science packs,...


One question: how does the laser turret shooting speed work since the turrets now fire continuous beams? And why doesn't the Laser Turret Shooting Speed research also boost the other types of energy weapons?

- If my tests, math and memory is right, the 30 items per 21 seconds means you need roughly 2 assembling machines making rails for 3 assembling machines making production science packs, and 1 assembling machine of iron sticks added to that, resulting in a basic ratio of 3:2:1. That's not so much.

For me, it isn't just the numbers, it's the actual ingredient. Pieces of rail seem to be a thoroughly ridiculous thing to consume in a lab, and they are, for that stage of the game, a very simple thing to make. It's a real head scratcher trying to invent an excuse to test half a mile of train track to destruction in a routine science experiment to satisfy my imagination.

Edit: I forgot to add that all the concerns I might have regarding this FFF's announced changes are nothing compared to the removal ingredient count limit in FFF#266, which is nothing compared to the removal of mining hardness, which is nothing compared to the removal of axes. If I'm stuck with putting half a stack of rails into a cringey science pack, I can easily tank that. I think my current mod pack (which has Bob's, Science Cost Tweaker and More Science plus all its extensions, plus two more mods which have their own science systems - it's making me wish I could run multiple researches at once) has science packs which require axes... (flip flip) ...yeah it does

Ferlonas wrote: Sat Dec 29, 2018 12:26 pm but just basically trying to shut them down with one sentence.

The role of the rulemakers in an open forum is, mostly, to say "no, this is not up for discussion at this moment" or "yeah, that's worth thinking about". That doesn't make it less frustrating when the answer is no, but I'm happier if they spend their more of time making the game better and less of it sugar-coating their nos.