Version 2.0.45

[Jap2.0]

Everyone knows that the settings the speed runners are completing the game on is not in the spirit of Factorio

This is factually inacurate, you can see for yourself that there exist a default setting category

Pretty obvious from context that this is not what he's referring to.

[mmmPI]

Everyone knows that the settings the speed runners are completing the game on is not in the spirit of Factorio

This is factually inacurate, you can see for yourself that there exist a default setting category

Pretty obvious from context that this is not what he's referring to.

From what i read i was under the impression that OP was only aware of one ruleset because there seem to be lot of confusion between players who talk about getting all the achievements, speedrunners doing 100% in one run, speedrunner playing default settings to win the game, or speedrunners playing default settings for 100%.

Otherwise i do not consider the sentence as true, i mentionned in this thread that my favourite speedrun category is default settings. It doesn't make me unable to understand why the potential removal of another category of speedrun is something that would be deemed annoying bt players who only like ths other one.

[thedoh]

I don't see why its a big deal for speed runners to accept this change.

The 100% category is no longer viable after 2.0.45. No one wants to sit around doing nothing while waiting to research artillery because it isn't compelling gameplay (to say nothing of compelling viewing). We have been able to change these settings for more than 7.5 years and calling this a bugfix now is wildly missing the mark - and you can go pound sand if you want to dictate how other people must play this game.

[Chindraba]

Everyone knows that the settings the speed runners are completing the game on is not in the spirit of Factorio.

Would you be so kind as to define the 'spirit of Factorio' to this mere mortal, please.

In 1.1, without turning on peaceful mode or reducing the enemy base size and frequency below default, without disabling pollution or expansion, thus keeping all achievements as available, each of the 4,294,967,296 possible map seeds has
147,360,023,846,127,392,362,113,227,338,589,805,170,421,337,452,224,418,953,123,856,384
variations available.

The additional settings added in 2.0, without the expansion, only increases that number by a factor of 20,736. I'm not going to calculate the full range for Space Age.
[Edit: I forgot about the Lakes elevation vs Nauvis elevation switch. Make that a factor of 41,472.]

If you wish to use pure default settings, which happens to be even more strict than what the change here sets, that reduces the total options to exactly ONE.

Surely the 'spirit of Factorio' is not about removing choice. The game encourages choice and rewards innovation. A 'game' with a scripted play is nothing more than a jigsaw puzzle. A pastime you're certainly welcome to enjoy, outside of Factorio.

Beating the game with nerfed settings isn't beating the game. After this change, you can still use your nerfed settings, they just wont be official wins by Factorio standards, just as they aren't official wins right now.

Which authority, other than your esteemed self, has declared that the wins currently recorded on the speedrunning site, and on Steam for that matter, "aren't official wins right now"? They sure look official to me. You are certainly welcome to prove you can do better, with any settings you happen to prefer. You could even attempt it with the 'nerfed settings' you seemingly despise. Odds are you cannot do as well as the lowest rank on page one for ANY category listed. I know I cannot. Of course, I'm also not advocating for super strict settings, or deciding what is, or is not an "official" win.

Play the game the way we all know it was meant to be played, and beat the game the way it was meant to be beaten if you want credit for it.

I have a very hard time accepting the dictates of any one outside WUBE attempting to define how the game "was meant to be played", or how it "was meant to be beaten". It seems that if the limited range of setting not called 'nerfed' by you was how it was meant to be played, those would be the only options available. Those of us who are not privileged to dwell on Mt. Olympus often find fun and entertainment by using the tools the game creators placed at our disposal. If the Olympians have their own 'house rules' that is fine for them. However, please don't attempt to define the mortal realm with your immortal standards. It's unseemly for such an august being.

[kqwq]

Hi,

This is the first post on the forum. I am a Factorio player who enjoys watching 100% speedruns in my free time. I completely disagree with the change to disable achievements if any map settings have been changed. I would like to see this specific change reverted. That being said, great job on the bugfixes. Really impressed how focused the developers are on squashing bugs.

Thanks.

[Loewchen]

I completely disagree with the change to disable achievements if any map settings have been changed.

Thankfully no such change exists.

[Chindraba]

Just an update:
1. In the next release, all saves started with version prior 2.0.45 will not have the achievements limited the new way.

I really appreciate this accommodation. I've been thinking about it, however. I wonder if it is worth the development effort. It seems like it's going to re-introduce the code complexity removed by dropping the research queue on/maybe/off issue. I don't know how much remains to be done in 2.0 before you're able to move into 2.1, and the even more achievements you have planned. I'm thinking that if it's a relatively short haul, or rather if it looks like it will be, perhaps the change could just be withheld until the 2.1 release rather than working in a gazillion checks for is or is not a pre 2.0.45 game.

On the other hand, if 2.1 is more distant than it is close, keeping the check in the code base is likely to be like maintaining two versions 2.0.x and 2.½.x moving forward. Not a condition I'd appreciate having to code under.

Either way, I think the effort, while greatly appreciated, is not worth the trouble. Especially as the number of players who will benefit from the effort is probably rather small compared to the active player base. The version check won't help the speedrunners at all since their rules include using the latest release within 2 days of the attempted run. Players starting a new game will either be under the new rules if they updated, or won't have to worry about the new rules if they don't update. Only those in an active game pre 2.0.45 who are not on a beta branch, and get the forced auto-update from Steam, will benefit by having the game they started continue with the existing rules they started with. Their next game will be under the new rules anyway, and they will get the notice in the map settings for the new rules the same as they would for the settings prior to 2.0.45.

Much as I dislike the change, that it is happening is a given, and accepted as inevitable. I think, however, that it's better overall to save it for the 2.1 release, and skip the extra work and complexity of making a dual-branch version between now and then. Or, if it is going to remain in 2.0.45+, just add a warning to the update process, which Steam cannot intercept, and roll with it going forward, again, without the dual-branch headache.

[mmmPI]

Only those in an active game pre 2.0.45 who are not on a beta branch, and get the forced auto-update from Steam, will benefit by having the game they started continue with the existing rules they started with.

This is not correct, it will also benefit all players that decide to willfully upgrade their version downloaded from the official website.

I wonder if it is worth the development effort.

isn't it a pointless exercise to try weight-in the efforts required to do things for which us mere mortal have no proper understanding ?

I think, however, that it's better overall to save it for the 2.1 release, and skip the extra work and complexity of making a dual-branch version between now and then.

Isn't that the opposite of what you asked for earlier ?

I hope 2.0.46 has a 'bug fix' to remove this bug 2.0.45 created.