Factorio Forums

meganothing wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 5:01 pm
Point 1 though is touching on a rather important part of a sandboxy game like factorio. You can solve energy in very different ways on the different planets for example, why leave that out of the game, it might streamline it for people only interested in making gigafactories, but it would make the game smaller. It also makes it possible to fail completely on any planet and restart.

I'm not upset with there being new ways to do things. I should have been more clear on this point. My point is that the way the game is designed, a lot of the design work went into stuff like different types of power generation and different ways to make the basic recipes. This would be ok if there was more content after that, but as it stands, a lot of the new content is redundant.

To take it further, I think more could be done to make the new stuff interesting. Let's use power generation on Fulgora as an example. As it stands, the lightning mechanic is pretty forgettable. I make a grid of power/lightning collectors over the island I'm building on, and never have to interact with it again. The second tier of collectors is completely unnecessary. One way that this mechanic could be further utilized is by having something that draws a LOT of power, but only intermittently, so that you had to manage the day night cycle, rather than just plopping down a bunch of accumulators and forgetting about it. Or some way to use the excess power you get from the lightning strikes - using them directly, rather than just storing in accumulators.

I hope that illustrates what I'm talking about. The lightning IS a new mechanic, but it doesn't really add anything beyond the first fifteen minutes on Fulgora, and I suppose having to build around the lightning collectors... but this isn't much of a challenge.

meganothing wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 5:01 pm Is the hub a bottleneck? You can add more cargo bays to add throughput to the deliver from space and the limit of one hub per planet is none with a working railroad network. "making it difficult" you say, isn't that just another puzzle to solve? We want puzzles in the game.

As it currently stands, no the hub isn't really a bottleneck, but I was referencing the cursed design. If SA involved more interplanetary logistics and a higher volume of throughput - not just for science packs but for a bunch of other resources as well, the hub starts to become a limiting factor. Not necessarily limited in terms of throughput, because you can use bots, but bots are kind boring. But if you had, let's say, 20 different items regularly being shipped in large quantities, the hub could be a bit annoying to work with. It's difficult to know because that's not the game we have. Perhaps situating the hub next to a train depot would solve this problem.

But the other problem with the hub is Gleba science, which highly incentivizes you to put the labs hear the hub, which makes it a crowded area already, especially when you consider you need a bunch of bays.

So basically space age is the better balanced game as you don't need to invent a new goal just a day after starting . For me your argument looks exactly like the argument of some MMO-players who want the leveling game to be shorter so they can start with the "end game" which is the only part that interests them. This is correct for them, but short-changes the other half of players who don't have this singular and rather limited interest in the game.

Not exactly. I was responding to the idea that "the game starts at 60", or in this case "the game begins after you launch a rocket". I don't think that's true in SA because of how long it takes to get through it. There's definitely a difference between the sandbox that is 1.0 and the adventure that is SA. I think it's a matter of preference which style of game you enjoy more, but I think SA fails at both these things by kinda but not really doing both.

If SA is going for the more sandbox vibe, all the tools need to be given earlier so that it doesn't take as long to start making the designs you want to make. If SA is an adventure, the ending sucks.

And the puzzles in the game were always only difficult if you set yourself goals outside of simply reaching whatever end.

This was true in 1.0, but as I said above, the length of time it takes to get all the tools make just getting to the end a much bigger part of the game.

When you say it is shallow after you have figured it out, this is true for all puzzles in factorio, even and especially in 1.0. They still are fun for me because I sometimes find or try new ways to solve them.

The most fun I've had in factorio is the logistics problems that come from scaling. Transporting large quantities of resources isn't just building more, you actually have to change the way you do things. The current design of SA works against this somewhat with all the productivity bonuses, and even the faster stacked belts. I don't think this is necessarily a problem > being able to scale further with less stuff. But it needs to be replaced by something, like more complex recipes. Which goes into my complaint about quality and suggestion to change it to require more complex recipes to make - and increased productivity requiring more complex recipes.

If you can transport huge quantities of stuff in a small space on a stacked green belt, then the challenge isn't moving resources any more - it's organizing them. This is why I like Fulgora - the sorting mechanic is very complicated if you want to be efficient and avoid waste while also not jamming. It's the most interesting thing in the expansion for me.

quineotio wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 10:20 pm

meganothing wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 5:01 pm
Point 1 though is touching on a rather important part of a sandboxy game like factorio. You can solve energy in very different ways on the different planets for example, why leave that out of the game, it might streamline it for people only interested in making gigafactories, but it would make the game smaller. It also makes it possible to fail completely on any planet and restart.

I'm not upset with there being new ways to do things. I should have been more clear on this point. My point is that the way the game is designed, a lot of the design work went into stuff like different types of power generation and different ways to make the basic recipes. This would be ok if there was more content after that, but as it stands, a lot of the new content is redundant.

Yes, the new production buildings are not what would draw me to Space Age. Though the design of different types of power generation was done for 1.0. I fail to see what design work done for 1.0 has to do with space age.

To take it further, I think more could be done to make the new stuff interesting. Let's use power generation on Fulgora as an example. As it stands, the lightning mechanic is pretty forgettable. I make a grid of power/lightning collectors over the island I'm building on, and never have to interact with it again. The second tier of collectors is completely unnecessary. One way that this mechanic could be further utilized is by having something that draws a LOT of power, but only intermittently, so that you had to manage the day night cycle, rather than just plopping down a bunch of accumulators and forgetting about it. Or some way to use the excess power you get from the lightning strikes - using them directly, rather than just storing in accumulators.

This may ultimately lead to a great idea, but at the moment the obvious solution to something that draws a LOT of power is ... more accumulators. Even if we say the power is more than even LOTS of accumulators can handle and we need a new thingy that has a cool name but is essentially a big accumulator, we still have no interesting problem here.

Same with your second idea to use the power directly. Lets say Wube would add a new assembler which works only when it gets hit by lightning, then what? What makes this into a puzzle?

I hope that illustrates what I'm talking about. The lightning IS a new mechanic, but it doesn't really add anything beyond the first fifteen minutes on Fulgora, and I suppose having to build around the lightning collectors... but this isn't much of a challenge.

Yes. A little sharade to make the lightning into some integral part of the factory would probably not helped provide a challenge either, but it could have been a boost to immersion and coolness factor.

meganothing wrote: Tue Mar 11, 2025 5:01 pm Is the hub a bottleneck? You can add more cargo bays to add throughput to the deliver from space and the limit of one hub per planet is none with a working railroad network. "making it difficult" you say, isn't that just another puzzle to solve? We want puzzles in the game.

As it currently stands, no the hub isn't really a bottleneck, but I was referencing the cursed design. If SA involved more interplanetary logistics and a higher volume of throughput - not just for science packs but for a bunch of other resources as well, the hub starts to become a limiting factor. Not necessarily limited in terms of throughput, because you can use bots, but bots are kind boring. But if you had, let's say, 20 different items regularly being shipped in large quantities, the hub could be a bit annoying to work with. It's difficult to know because that's not the game we have. Perhaps situating the hub next to a train depot would solve this problem.

Another solution to that problem is stack inserters, belts, and splitters to the sort the 20 items if not already done with the inserter filters, all already in the game. You are just limited to 31 stack inserters+belts to get everything out. If that isn't enough you really need bots on top or check if trains can handle more. But isn't that exactly the type of problem you listed as one you would like to solve?

Not exactly. I was responding to the idea that "the game starts at 60", or in this case "the game begins after you launch a rocket". I don't think that's true in SA because of how long it takes to get through it. There's definitely a difference between the sandbox that is 1.0 and the adventure that is SA. I think it's a matter of preference which style of game you enjoy more, but I think SA fails at both these things by kinda but not really doing both.

You say you responded to the idea? Who brought it up? I thought you did, by saying you want to get faster to the "end game" so you can build your megafactory.

The most fun I've had in factorio is the logistics problems that come from scaling. Transporting large quantities of resources isn't just building more, you actually have to change the way you do things. The current design of SA works against this somewhat with all the productivity bonuses, and even the faster stacked belts. I don't think this is necessarily a problem > being able to scale further with less stuff. But it needs to be replaced by something, like more complex recipes. Which goes into my complaint about quality and suggestion to change it to require more complex recipes to make - and increased productivity requiring more complex recipes.

If you can transport huge quantities of stuff in a small space on a stacked green belt, then the challenge isn't moving resources any more - it's organizing them. This is why I like Fulgora - the sorting mechanic is very complicated if you want to be efficient and avoid waste while also not jamming. It's the most interesting thing in the expansion for me.

I agree, Fulgora is a lot of fun because of all this sorting, but it is quality sorting on top of item sorting that makes Fulgora shine.

meganothing wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 4:47 am Though the design of different types of power generation was done for 1.0. I fail to see what design work done for 1.0 has to do with space age.

I was talking about lightning collectors, power from sulfur, the heating tower etc. They weren't in 1.0.

This may ultimately lead to a great idea, but at the moment the obvious solution to something that draws a LOT of power is ... more accumulators. Even if we say the power is more than even LOTS of accumulators can handle and we need a new thingy that has a cool name but is essentially a big accumulator, we still have no interesting problem here.

More accumulators is the exact same thing as we have now. I'm talking about something that DRAWS a lot of power, but only needs to run intermittently. At the moment you just build enough accumulators to satisfy demand. What if there was something that created a large spike in power so that you could only use it at night? It's just one example of how to further utilize a unique aspect of Fulgora. Having a building that worked off being struck by lightning could be interesting - maybe you have to be more careful about lightning protection to make sure that building gets hit (i.e. is not protected by lightning collectors).

But the real thing I'm pointing to is a lack of depth and/or a lack of progression. Each planet only really scratches the surface of what's possible. It's fun to learn the new things, but also fairly quick. And after that the difficulty doesn't ramp up much. The concepts aren't explored deeply. Once you understand how to "do" the planets, the challenge is basically over. It feels like the first half of a full experience.

Another solution to that problem is stack inserters, belts, and splitters to the sort the 20 items if not already done with the inserter filters, all already in the game. You are just limited to 31 stack inserters+belts to get everything out. If that isn't enough you really need bots on top or check if trains can handle more. But isn't that exactly the type of problem you listed as one you would like to solve?

The problem is that if you increase the number of items you have to pass through the hub it eventually becomes unwieldy. Even as it stands you basically have to use bots. If you could have multiple hubs, you could be more specific about what you request at each hub, or perhaps even use space to send materials a long distance. As I understand it, the devs didn't want this to be possible because it bypasses a logistics challenge... but it creates a different problem by restricting design space, so even if the restriction on hubs accomplishes one purpose it creates a new issue.

It also doesn't really make sense. You'd think the power of space would be to drop things anywhere.

I see many topics where players ask for foundations to be unlocked earlier, or at least a way to connect all the island with power grid early in the game, "it's a sandbox game why don't we have all the tools available at the start ?". And then the sometimes the same players complain that there is a lack of progression feeling in the game, i guess not everyone understand progression in the same way, because to me it seem that those are mutually exclusive.

mmmPI wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 7:49 am I see many topics where players ask for foundations to be unlocked earlier, or at least a way to connect all the island with power grid early in the game, "it's a sandbox game why don't we have all the tools available at the start ?". And then the sometimes the same players complain that there is a lack of progression feeling in the game, i guess not everyone understand progression in the same way, because to me it seem that those are mutually exclusive.

Although being a sandbox and having good progression aren't mutually exclusive, I think this points to Space Age falling short as both a sandbox AND with progression.

To try to describe why they aren't mutually exclusive I'll use the example of 1.0. In 1.0 you have to do the initial research and build your starter base. Then you can expand and build something bigger. As you grow bigger the challenge changes and new problems emerge. For example, how you create enough iron for 4k science per minute is fundamentally different to creating enough iron for 500 spm.

And as I've said above, the length of the experience also factors in. If you're expected to play for two weeks before you unlock everything, then it's not really a sandbox - and not just because of how long it takes to "get started", but also because of the size of the "starter base", and the fact that you need working factories on five planets before you get all the tools, which makes it more daunting to then, after you've already spent a lot of time and effort, to scale up.

And there's not that much utility to building big as you go (e.g. build big on Nauvis, then build big on Vulcanus, then Fulgora etc.) because you don't have all the tools, and also there's basically no reward for doing so. I tried using quality en masse on Nauvis before Fulgora and it just sucked. You need a way to void items if you put quality modules in your miners and furnaces. And in Space Age you're almost always better off building small, because productivity bonuses and quality are an adequate way to scale with less effort. The easiest way to scale up is to just wait on quality and drag with the upgrade planner while research ticks on.

I could choose to not use quality, or not to get the productivity research, but is the answer to not use parts of the game? I already turn off cliffs because I don't want to have to go to Vulcanus first (because I hate having slow bots so it's Fulgora), and enemies because I don't like the higher health on biters, and you don't get artillery or better shields, or the spidertron, or better explosives etc. until you've left the planet. But it feels like part of the game is missing (because it is). But I have to make a choice between forgoing the interesting parts of playing with enemies or putting up with the things I find annoying, and on the whole I'd rather turn them off. Maybe I'd have more fun if I just played in the editor?

If it's a sandbox, I want to do what I want to do. If it's progression it needs to feel meaningful and not just be a number getting higher. If the fastest/easiest way to increase production is to sit idle until productivity research is finished then it's not gameplay. I don't want to have to actively fight against/disable the game's systems to have fun.

Also, the progression in Space Age just doesn't make sense. You're an engineer solving complex problems, but just not certain obvious glaring issues that seem like they'd be easy to solve, like blowing up cliffs (even though you can make explosives) or putting down concrete over oil sands (even though you can fill in oceans).

quineotio wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:05 am Maybe I'd have more fun if I just played in the editor?

Actually, my approach is using the map editor for factory development. And deployment on the real map. My factory development approach is to put one manufacturing machine on the map, then set the recipe for the product I want to produce (for example science packs). I look what ingredients I need, then for every ingredient I add another machine with that ingredient. And the same for the ingredients of these, and so on, until only raw resources remain as input. Now I have an unorganized bunch of manufacturing machines on the map, and I know what I have to produce. Then I decide what modules and beacon density to use and add the corresponding items. Then I use rate calculator to see how many machines I need for every product and intermediate, and how much material input I have to provide. This gives me a huge heap of manufacturing machines, each duplicated as many times as needed to provide the proper ratios.
Finally, I arrange them and connect them with inserters/belts/bots, so there is one input (the raw material) and one output for the whole production line. Then I provide the input from infinity chests to see if it works as intended.
This approach is best supported by the map editor, because I constantly cut+paste things back and forth to arrange them. One tile to the left, 2 tiles to the bottom, split here, duplicate that. This really just works well with the map editor.

And if it works as intended, I blueprint the contraption and use it on the real map.

This way I have time to tinker with the thing, debug and inspect it, especially stop time and single step ticks, add circuits and debug them without having to care for the existing parts of the factory. It also allows me to investigate the game mechanics without any pressure. Pressure is what I cannot stand and what disables strategic thinking for me. May be it's not the intended way to play Factorio, but this is what is most fun for me. First planning in map editor and develop my own blueprints, second step is deployment on the real map. Crucial thing is stopping time - if stopping and single stepping though ticks was a real map feature, I would probably not resort to the map editor.

Tertius wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 10:31 am Actually, my approach is using the map editor for factory development. And deployment on the real map.

I do something similar but use ghost display panels. And with Gleba I've used the editor because it's annoying to deal with spoilage otherwise. In 1.0 when I was designing a 4k spm base I designed all the pieces in the editor. I don't worry about ratio calculators - I just run it and see when it maxes out, and check the production stats. Being able to spawn and delete items indeed makes it very convenient to test things.

It's a bit of a disconnect if I'm playing "properly" though. There's something about doing it all in game that's different. Not necessarily better, but different.

quineotio wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 9:05 am I already turn off cliffs because I don't want to have to go to Vulcanus first (because I hate having slow bots so it's Fulgora), and enemies because I don't like the higher health on biters, and you don't get artillery or better shields, or the spidertron, or better explosives etc. until you've left the planet. But it feels like part of the game is missing (because it is).

nice one ! Good illustration of what i mean by some players remove from the game what constitute a sense of progression to make the game easier for themselves and have all the good late game tool at the start, and then complain

mmmPI wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 2:45 pm nice one ! Good illustration of what i mean by some players remove from the game what constitute a sense of progression to make the game easier for themselves and have all the good late game tool at the start, and then complain

You should make a mod where you only unlock tier 2 assemblers and red belts after you get prometheum science.

quineotio wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 3:01 pm You should make a mod where you only unlock tier 2 assemblers and red belts after you get prometheum science.

You need at least AM2 for barrels filling/emptying. Without fluoroketone and fusion power, reaching SSE will be extra hard.

quineotio wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 5:45 am

meganothing wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 4:47 am Though the design of different types of power generation was done for 1.0. I fail to see what design work done for 1.0 has to do with space age.

I was talking about lightning collectors, power from sulfur, the heating tower etc. They weren't in 1.0.

Ah, okay. Though you are again assuming there could be layers of difficulties that Wube could have implemented but I don't see anything that could really add meaningfull complexity, see below (IMHO). Energy is a very boring resource as it is a single number at any time that either is enough for the demand or not. Its easy distribution drastically limits how much Wube can complicate its use and it would be a bit of a stretch to prevent say power poles on other planets just so there could be a new puzzle.

This may ultimately lead to a great idea, but at the moment the obvious solution to something that draws a LOT of power is ... more accumulators. Even if we say the power is more than even LOTS of accumulators can handle and we need a new thingy that has a cool name but is essentially a big accumulator, we still have no interesting problem here.

More accumulators is the exact same thing as we have now. I'm talking about something that DRAWS a lot of power, but only needs to run intermittently. At the moment you just build enough accumulators to satisfy demand. What if there was something that created a large spike in power so that you could only use it at night?

I don't see it. It is exactly what I was already talking about in my previous post. The obvious solution is accumulators for the problem you are describing. They store surplus energy to be used in the instant when normal energy supply is not enough.
At least in reality it is, in Factorio even fission reactor plants can instantly react to demand, so steam turbines combined with storage tanks actually provide more instantly available energy per area than accumulators.

It's just one example of how to further utilize a unique aspect of Fulgora. Having a building that worked off being struck by lightning could be interesting - maybe you have to be more careful about lightning protection to make sure that building gets hit (i.e. is not protected by lightning collectors).

Yes, that you need to exclude the building from the protection network would have been a really nice touch. And additionally it would be nice if you would have to still include them in the power network so you would need protected power stations that still reach the buildings . But it isn't at all complex to set this up correctly, you could still (rightly) complain that everything is trivial and lacks depth.

But the real thing I'm pointing to is a lack of depth and/or a lack of progression. Each planet only really scratches the surface of what's possible. It's fun to learn the new things, but also fairly quick. And after that the difficulty doesn't ramp up much. The concepts aren't explored deeply. Once you understand how to "do" the planets, the challenge is basically over. It feels like the first half of a full experience.

Another solution to that problem is stack inserters, belts, and splitters to sort the 20 items if not already done with the inserter filters, all already in the game. You are just limited to 31 stack inserters+belts to get everything out. If that isn't enough you really need bots on top or check if trains can handle more. But isn't that exactly the type of problem you listed as one you would like to solve?

The problem is that if you increase the number of items you have to pass through the hub it eventually becomes unwieldy. Even as it stands you basically have to use bots.

Huh?? Are you seriously saying you cannot do this currently with up to 31(!!) lanes of belts and instead you need bots? Can it be that you always build on large spaces and never tried to use space efficiently? Are you shying away from using a dense setup simply because it doesn't look good or is below your standard to do puzzles at that level?

I mean, do the math: Max belt capacity is at 240 items /s , times 31 means you can import 7440 science packs per second just with belts. Divided by 6 science packs outside nauvis means roughly 1240 full science pack sets available per second and **roughly** you need more than 1000 science labs to use all that, **as it stands**. I have no idea where megafactories are at, is 1000 science labs operated continuously normal? Can 7440 items per second be delivered through space with workable UPS?

If you could have multiple hubs, you could be more specific about what you request at each hub, or perhaps even use space to send materials a long distance. As I understand it, the devs didn't want this to be possible because it bypasses a logistics challenge... but it creates a different problem by restricting design space, so even if the restriction on hubs accomplishes one purpose it creates a new issue.

It also doesn't really make sense. You'd think the power of space would be to drop things anywhere.

Yes it does restrict design space (if I understand the term correctly), like every restriction in the game does as well. The game IS made out of restrictions or rules like every other game out there.
in this specific case it creates the logistics challenge as you yourself mention. There is no "different problem" here, it forces you to this bottle neck and distribute the items to where they are needed.

Because of very slow spoilage it makes sense to have the science labs not too far from the space port. Is that really a meaningful limitation when there is absolutely no other criteria that demands where to put it? And "not too far" means that each minute of transport (on belt that would be 450 tiles away) costs you 1.6% efficiency.


PS: Judging from your posts I have a theory why you don't like SA: All the new planets have rather heavy placement restrictions (similar to cliffs and water on nauvis) making it hard to treat those planets as a canvas for "painting" huge cleanly laid out factories. The player needs to go into the details instead. Factorio has multiple groups of players and one of those groups is not getting the planets they want.
My advice: If you every want to play with SA stuff without playing SA I would recommend adding the mod that transplants all the SA features back to nauvis, it may be called "One planet" or similar.

Looks in curiously.

meganothing wrote: Wed Mar 12, 2025 5:10 pm
Ah, okay. Though you are again assuming there could be layers of difficulties that Wube could have implemented but I don't see anything that could really add meaningfull complexity, see below (IMHO). Energy is a very boring resource as it is a single number at any time that either is enough for the demand or not. Its easy distribution drastically limits how much Wube can complicate its use and it would be a bit of a stretch to prevent say power poles on other planets just so there could be a new puzzle.

I believe sir, you need to be a bit careful here. The fusion reactor is essentially the one from Krastorio with a coat of paint. But what Krastorio has that Space Age does not is a matter balancing system where you could melt down trees for a few hundred megawatts to raw matter and transfer that back into the equivalent of holmium. By neglecting the infinite character of that system, and the overall science fiction promise of a relatively cheap energy source by making the thing take finite, easily refined holmium it falls flat if you've seen it done differently, you get into the sort of territory Space Age finds itself in where someone can dismiss it as tedious.

So it's a rough spot. Because assuming you're being honest in your argument, you're defending a good implementation.
And say with cargo handling on Space Platforms you'd be right. That was a novel experience in an interesting environment for me.

The second I go groundside I'm dealing with an oversized train dock that thinks it's too important to be built twice. And as soon as I throw about thousand or so robots at it it'll roll over and pretend to be an infinitely linked storage chest.

I might not do 10K science but it's been done, so a 7440 capable system divided for a few thousand is deficient in that respect and a google search will yield videos from five years ago when that was not simply accomplished but overmatched. And the issue is that design space doesn't merely mean physical space. It could options that are practically available to design with. If I can't pull up a 40 car train to it how ever will I compare to Dosh Doshington and his concrete factory in 1.x? Whether or not I can practically do it (doubt it, and I'm maybe one of five people on the internet who'll just own that) that's the light it gets judged in in general.

If I say I do not want it, it's because the product delivered just didn't stand up to prior technology and that's okay. A quality product was delivered, and regardless of my criticism I think that it is a quality product. But Wube can't be in two places at once, and if this is what I got I'd rather get a game where I was an amateur again, like everyone else with a new set of rules.

meganothing wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2025 4:11 pm

Eternal wrote: Sat Feb 22, 2025 1:43 pm i dont see any point in adding more planets... i also play dyson sphere prg and i dont even tackle 10 % of planets.

also

if more planets means more type of sciences that means some other research ...for what? i already barely touch the ores and barely use science packs to research...

megabasing with planets is not worth the dev work in my opinion... plus dunno if engine can sustain more ships.

unless...

we get more dimensions, as in separate instances, so we can exponentially grow factories, and each planet to held ofc its own special thing and ores... and i dunno what goal would be then.... im imagining one big machine per planet

You could ask the same question "why ..." to mod authors who add dozens of sciences and intermediate recipes that basically only "delay" the inevitable reaching of whatever goal you set to yourself. Either you want more factorio or you don't.

Simply moving some of the important sciences to some other world would make that world enticing. Or someone really finds a new science to offer that is necessarily optional (if nothing is removed from the original worlds). If someone doesn't care for that optional feature, oh well. But if he wants to play with it, there's the planet for it.

The big advantage and disadvantage of a sandbox game is ... no surprise here ... inevitably ... that it is a sandbox

[Edited because I made a mess when presenting my argument, hope it makes more sense now]

my concern was that game will start lagging... im not oposing more planets, im oposing more useless planets...i would prefer more features from Space Exploration mod, and even then , more space related stuff

btw i just tested a mod for a new water planet, i can see moders putting a lot of work there...but i couldnt force myself to play it more than 1 hour ... it just feels pointless... im planing to start a new megabase in vanilla factorio with the new toys in hope that will keep me entertained a bit more...

I struggle to see how anyone would vote no, if there were more expansions and they were of the same high quality, but I think that's also the catch: It would be an enormous amount of work.

A second expansion would be exponentially more difficult to execute well on and just as much more work. The incredible depth of existing gameplay and the extreme degree, to which it could be disrupted by additional content and mechanics, is not something to be taken lightly. I would definitely not want any loosely added extra expansion packs because they would almost 100% guaranteed not stand up to the quality of the game as a whole. I think it belongs to the realm of mods, and right now I can only dream of the amazing things modders will accomplish. Passion project mods still have the potential to stand up to Factorio's amazing quality.

Wube has worked really hard on Factorio and on polishing Space Age, but they have suggested that it is soon time for Factorio to be finished as a product, which I compassionately agree with.

As a result, I am reluctant to vote "yes" because it seems so unrealistic, but if it was a reality, I would absolutely buy them.