Factorio Forums

Zavian wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:32 am I have over 2000 hours in Factorio, and I'm in favour of the pickaxe removal.

As a 1400hr player (most in Angel-Bob's or Seablock), I agree . It adds nothing to vanilla, and little to Bob's (imo). I haven't played stoneage and most of the other mods brought up, so I can't say how relevant it is there, but expecting Wube to not make changes they want because some mod does something different isn't tenable.

Zavian wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:32 amPlease stop accusing the devs of ignoring you/"the core players". I recall Posila trying to engage with you. If I recall correctly, you just dismissed or ignored everything he said, and continued to spout the same emotional argument at him. You seem to expect that if you make enough fuss, the devs will cave to you. (That might work if a large enough proportion of the playerbase were upset. But I only recall seeing only a few players expressing disappointment with the decision, and exactly one person making a fuss).

If you actually want the devs to change their minds on this, then you need to provide a logical argument that explains "why keeping the pickaxe makes Factorio a better game". That might sway the devs. I stressed the word logical deliberately. I have even asked you to for this earlier. If I recall correctly, Posila asked you this. (You don't need to convince me, you need to convince at least one of the devs). Your continued failure to provide an argument based on logic and not emotion leads me to the conclusion that you don't have one. (In which case it is past time to stop throwing an internet tantrum over losing your precious axe).

1000 times THIS. The arguments presented seem to fall into the categories of "my priorities and assumptions are different from the Devs and based on those this change doesn't make sense" or "this change breaks my fan fiction".

And I do not understand why some people want to keep it. From my point of view it adds almost nothing to the gameplay. It's an occasional resource sink, potentially at an inconvenient moment. Is that planning ahead for so you don't run out of axes at an inconvenient moment attractive to players?

Even after 2000+ hours I dislike crafting “too many” pickaxes. So I craft only a few. Then, inevitably, I find my “mining” speed to suddenly drop and it takes forever to “mine” (remove) buildings and such when reconstructing a part of my base.

(Aside: why do I need a Pickaxe to remove something from the ground? Did I use the Pickaxe to “place” that item earlier? Maybe...I really don’t know.)

And my brain, every single time, has a disconnect. Why is it taking so long to vacuum up these buildings. My eyes quickly scan the UI, and my experience with Factotio quickly finds the missing Pickaxe. And then I think “oh yeah...that”.

Every. Freaking. Time.

And *that* breaks my immersion. Why do I need a Pickaxe to pick up a building I placed a while back. I have used a Pickaxe many times in real life, and let me assure you, the results would need a repair pack to be back to normal and be “placable” again.

Now, maybe I’m stupid or forgetful. Shiny things easily distract me. Maybe I’m more cat than human, I dunno.

But, for me, I’m happy it is gone. I hope Bob and the others get an even better base system that they can use to recode their mods. As a developer, I feel empathy for them having to put extra time in to “fix” their mods. and I appreciate the time they spend helping the community.

Regardless...personally, I can’t wait to try 0.17. I like all of the changes I’ve read about so far. And I think they make the “core game” better for the majority of the player base.

I’m not opposed to adding a pipe into the mix somewhere. I’m not sure green science is the best place for it, but meh...no big deal either way.

I do want to add my voice into the “recycle everything” camp. I don’t mind not having a sink for barrels as I mostly barrel my fluids and therefore have fairly massive barreling operations (that use some logistics to gauge how many barrels are needed vs how many are currently somewhere “in transit”—however, even this system can’t get rid of barrels once made, just prevent new ones from being manufactured if demand is lower). But man, it would be nice to not have to toss anything in a crate for disposal.

Anecdote: I, probably like many, carry around a lot of random junk in early- to mid-game. Before massive steel production, I often build very limited numbers (1-2) steel pickaxes. I have (more than once) neglected to plan ahead during an early expansion. I’ve run out of something, hand-crafted something that took all of my steel, had my steel Pickaxe break. Now I have a choice: craft an iron Pickaxe and hate it when I’m done and have to toss it in a chest and destroy it. Or, hope I have enough iron and a bit of fuel and a spare furnace or two in my inventory so I can ad-hock up enough steel for a Pickaxe. How is this a fun diversion?

I’m guessing I’m not the only one... actually I know I’m not the only one. I have seen it on YouTube, and heard about it from friends who play.

To bring back to discussion to the science pack changes;
A question regarding the blue science recipe time to craft. I've read in this topic and on the #FFF275 reddit topic that its the intention to reduce the crafting time for blue science. I fully support this as the current crafting time roughly doubles the amount of machines needed for blue science compared to the other sciences.

My question is, has there been a decision regarding the new crafting time for blue science? I'd like to know so the 0.17 science changes mods can be updated and megabases (or people who'd like to play around with 0.17 science) can play the latest version of the changes.

I love the new changes by the way and fully agree with the reasoning. It makes sense, I would really like to try it out in a real game and see how it works out with early game builds and late game beacons/modules. Recipe changes change the ratio's and materially impact design, I find it difficult to figure out in what way base design is impacted without trying it out myself, I expect that factorio developers run into similar difficulties. I'm also curious what the impact is on bus bases as iron/copper/stone/coal/oil ratio's change, as the bus base is the defacto starter/mid-game base it would be interesting to figure this out.

Nemoricus wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 1:04 pm

sparr wrote: Tue Jan 01, 2019 8:40 pm This update suggests that the devs think a lot of players are using automated science production as a source of materials for further expansion, and expansion of their main factory to fuel science production. My play style definitely doesn't include this, nor does that of most of the people I've watched. When I build my first refinery, I am hand crafting all the pipes, and just working on something else while that process finishes. Automating red ammo for defense vs for science are two completely different concerns for me, one often coming long before or after the other depending on the game settings I'm playing. Using solid fuel from my main refineries to produce science is... not going to happen.

Am I wrong here? Are many people driving science production from intermediate products produced in your main factory?

I have to agree with this post. I generally set up one area of my base for science production and then don't touch anything that goes into it. If I need materials for base expansion, I set up production elsewhere.

I think, its more, that the products of expansion mall can be used, not that they should be used.

If you build science to perfect ratio, its better to leave it running without stealing resources.
Otherwise, you also have some kind of synergy from using those mall products also for science. A belt factory for example can produce so fast, that you have problems to lay them all down. (At least before bots). But if you have the assemblers separated, you have more control.
Or if you overbuild ammo or grenades for science slightly and send the excess to a chest can be handy.

In early game, its also helpful, if you just build gears, green circuits, pipes, iron plates and steel to pickup for hand crafting miners, steam engines, chemplants etc. for expansion. Crafting a lot of underground pipes by hand f.e. is very time consuming. But with a stockpile of 1000 pipes its very fast.

Solid fuel is more a by-product in the beginning to get rid of light and heavy oil and very helpful for fueling furnaces and power. So it should be plentiful for blue science and its definitely faster to setup than more belts of iron for mining drills

Zavian wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:36 am So you unlock titanium. You make some. Then you research your mining axe upgrade, using a science flask (or other item that a lab can accept eg possibly a custom item that looks like a titanium axe and has a recipe like making a titanium axe) that is made (at least partially) from titanium.

No, that's not what he said. You see Zavian, you have this problem where you read what you want to read into what someone has actually typed, and then you argue against this myth of what you say you've read and not what was actually written. It's called a straw man fallacy. Although, in this case you're supporting something that Bilka has not proposed, and it gets proposed bedfore the end of that page anyway, so bringing it up here is both off-topic and redundant. I'm trying to keep axe-related discussion on this thread to a minimum. As THE guy who has complained about it, help me out here, will ya?

Zavian wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 12:43 pm Whilst I think the new science packs sound like a nice improvement for vanilla from a pacing and game balance/design perspective, I've always felt that late game science and rocket parts were too simple. Currently they don't feel satisfying. (Comment obviously based on 0.15/0.16, but I don't see the new recipes in 0.17 changing that much, although the addition of rails and flying robot frames will help). I'd prefer more complex recipe chains for those late game parts. (Of course this is something mods can change, so no big deal).

Now this is just confusing: Your complaint is about late-game stuff, which is things like processing circuits, rocket parts, and power armor. But the word "rails" appears. The running gag is of course this huge pile of rails to run one of hundreds of experiments in a lab. This is not late game, but mid game; the argument I see from the devs fairly consistently is that the item appears in a science pack approximately the same time you're going to be needing a lot of them anyway. It doesn't add up.

Tricorius wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:02 pm Why do I need a Pickaxe to pick up a building I placed a while back. I have used a Pickaxe many times in real life, and let me assure you, the results would need a repair pack to be back to normal and be “placable” again.

The whole idea that unplacing takes longer than placing - often compounded by a need to remove and store massive quantities of ore and other junk - is a very real problem but separate from the question of whether stoneaxes/steelaxes/jackhammers/laserdrills should exist.

abregado wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 11:40 am

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 10:40 am And I shall conclude with the "give link if you find one" with several quotes, you can click on the little arrows to go to them:

featherwinglove wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 9:46 am Problem not solved: I research ...

Common man, play fair.

Common man, play fair. Taking five words out of context like this is called "quote mining" (dang I wish I could link that to something that defines it properly but doesn't have a crazy bias about who does it.) "Problem not solved:" (emphasis in original) followed by an explanation as to why this doesn't solve the problem:

Koub wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:58 am Keep the mining speed upgrade. Discard the axe object crafting. Problem solved.
The mod will be even lighter : no need for new recipes or textures. Instead of having to craft the actual axe, it's granted with the tech unlock.

(emphasis added)

Not only that, but they've been taken out of the context in which they were used in this thread, making it look like I quoted myself directly, when actually, I'm quoting Bilka, and he's quoting me. This is the single worst offense of quote mining that I've seen in my whole life.

I'm fairly satisfied that I've done a decent job of defending the axe and refuting its removal when my opponents are consistently resorting to fallacy while accusing me of being emotional while often (not most of the time) sounding themselves like they're more emotional. :Lapras-face: Now if only we could talk about science packs again. Or at least about Factorio

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:38 pm No, that's not what he said. You see Zavian, you have this problem where you read what you want to read into what someone has actually typed, and then you argue against this myth of what you say you've read and not what was actually written. It's called a straw man fallacy. Although, in this case you're supporting something that Bilka has not proposed

Whoa, since when do you know what I mean? You are building the strawman here. Unlike you, Zavian understood that the words "research titanium axe" mean that you have a "titanium axe" research.

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:09 pm Common man, play fair. Taking five words out of context like this is called "quote mining" (dang I wish I could link that to something that defines it properly but doesn't have a crazy bias about who does it.) "Problem not solved:" (emphasis in original) followed by an explanation as to why this doesn't solve the problem:

Koub wrote: Mon Dec 17, 2018 8:58 am Keep the mining speed upgrade. Discard the axe object crafting. Problem solved.
The mod will be even lighter : no need for new recipes or textures. Instead of having to craft the actual axe, it's granted with the tech unlock.

(emphasis added)

I don't see an explanation of "it is not solved" in your original reply. Neither in the post I just quoted, your latest in this thread. May I ask why you are quoting someone who says that the problem is solved? That really doesn't support your point :)

Mike5000 wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 6:39 pm

Tricorius wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:02 pm Why do I need a Pickaxe to pick up a building I placed a while back. I have used a Pickaxe many times in real life, and let me assure you, the results would need a repair pack to be back to normal and be “placable” again.

The whole idea that unplacing takes longer than placing - often compounded by a need to remove and store massive quantities of ore and other junk - is a very real problem but separate from the question of whether stoneaxes/steelaxes/jackhammers/laserdrills should exist.

I agree. This has always been an annoyance of mine, and I would much rather have a tool progression to place things than to remove them. There is just a bit of that in Outpost 2, still only one ConVehc type. Also, using a particular tool to remove a building intact is a good idea (Outpost 2 doesn't have this, only various degrees to which the raw materials are recycled.) I remember the rage quit when I broke my Age of Engineering macerator with a pickaxe in Minecraft, that was a very expensive mistake for that phase of the game. But it's really nice to have that mechanic.

Tricorius wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 3:02 pm I’m guessing I’m not the only one... actually I know I’m not the only one. I have seen it on YouTube, and heard about it from friends who play.

This might surprise a few people: I'm fully in agreement that the axe should be removed from the vanilla game. What is actually disputed here is how it was removed from the vanilla game, and especially changes to the modding API and how necessary they really are, and there are other things besides axes in that discussion.

To try to relate this back to the discussion of science packs, there's this feeling among some of us (me especially), that developers have lost the plot and that there is a real and growing disconnect between where they want to take the game now, and where it was going before. Everything in #266 points in that direction, but the only thing in this update that really does is the production science pack and the massive pile of rails. When I saw that, I was like "Rails wtf?" And, just like before, the Wube guys seem incapable of understanding why so many players have a problem with it, and our concerns fall on deaf ears. Like so:

Rythe wrote: Sun Dec 30, 2018 11:53 pm So I don't see Wube changing it. Rails tick the right boxes per them, and that's as far as it goes.

...and even if it were not to tick the right boxes for any of the rest of us, good luck with it.

Of course, the reason why these particular things get discussed is because we usually like just about everything in an FFF. The only other thing in this FFF that I don't like is taking the bonus off the machine gun for the tank. I rarely use the tank as it is, but it will drop the tank completely from consideration for me; I'll just use the car and get out when it's combat time. Everything else I'm happy with.

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:09 pm Taking five words out of context like this is called "quote mining" ...

Son of a ... now you’re telling me I need a pickaxe just to reply on the forums too?

:: sigh ::

featherwinglove wrote:This might surprise a few people: I'm fully in agreement that the axe should be removed from the vanilla game. What is actually disputed here is how it was removed from the vanilla game, and especially changes to the modding API and how necessary they really are, and there are other things besides axes in that discussion.

Yup. I had my fair share of that feeling with my pet subject, logistics robots. I still prefer a “vanilla” experience. If logistics bots were removed, that would be the one time I would consistently reach for a mod. I get the overall concept of your concerns.

But I feel like 99% of the arguing disagreement in these forums is because we all have a passionate vision of what “our personal Factorio” looks like.

So, since I often toss out the “it is the devs’ game, make a mod for it” argument, I have to be intellectually honest and accept that as a potential “fix” if some of my favorite features get removed.

(Yes, I’m aware part of the potential problem is that there is only so much a mod can do. I think part of the formula for removing something that has been part of “vanilla” should be “how easy can we make it to mod it back in”. Though certainly not a requirement.)

featherwinglove wrote:The only other thing in this FFF that I don't like is taking the bonus off the machine gun for the tank.

I’m also not incredibly happy about this change. It was nice to steamroll the biters as I play Death World maps. There really are times when the RNG can screw you. It doesn’t happen very often, but I have been completely locked down on more than one map (though one could argue pushing lasers instead of kinetic turrets would likely have prevented that problem).

But, to be fair, machine guns with the 100% bonus were far superior to any type of tank cannon shell. So I get the change. I’m going to now have to play around with the various tank ammo types again to see if it is worth it.

Regardless, I’m hoping changes to the map resource generation will help alleviate those issues. The standard “you shouldn’t be able to win every ‘advanced config’” game argument is also reasonable.

Again, I’m fine with it. It is a game. It isn’t intended to be a realistic simulation. Which is another reason that rails in a science recipe doesn’t really bother me. The dev team is solving for the “most common denominator” player base.

I would consider them (newer players and casual players) the “core player base”. Not those who have thousands of hours in modded games. I’m sure they have some metrics to show them the player spectrum.

I say, let mods get posts from those 2 angry people moved into respective threads, while we talk about science changes here, ok?

I think 30x Concrete (or even more) would make much more interesting choice instead of rails. It serves all purposes much better than rails - it has 'complex' recipe due to fluid requirement, it's produced in bulks of 10, its recipe screams 'insert me directly', rails are actually a 'logistic' item. Remember - you wanted science pack names to actually mean something.

Bilka wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:24 pm Whoa, since when do you know what I mean? You are building the strawman here. Unlike you, Zavian understood that the words "research titanium axe" mean that you have a "titanium axe" research.

I don't see an explanation of "it is not solved" in your original reply. Neither in the post I just quoted, your latest in this thread. May I ask why you are quoting someone who says that the problem is solved? That really doesn't support your point

Take a break, man. Read the stuff over again in a week or two. The first part is borderline jibberish, as was the part I was quoting from you, and the second part is illiteracy. I keep having to repeat the same things over and over again and you just don't see it. I am really, really at a loss as to how to communicate with you at all, Bilka. I'm giving up.

Tricorius wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:43 pm

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:09 pm Taking five words out of context like this is called "quote mining" ...

Son of a ... now you’re telling me I need a pickaxe just to reply on the forums too?

:: sigh ::

LMAO, I really needed some comic relief, thanks!

Avezo wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:46 pm I say, let mods get posts from those 2 angry people moved into respective threads, while we talk about science changes here, ok?

There's five at this point, but yeah.

I think 30x Concrete (or even more) would make much more interesting choice for utility/yellow science pack instead of rails. It serves all purposes much better than rails - it has 'complex' recipe due to fluid requirement, it's produced in bulks of 10, its recipe screams 'insert me directly', it's actually a 'utility' item, whereas rails are 'logistic' item. Remember - you wanted science pack names to actually mean something.

That is the argument against even using the word "utility" to describe it. It's a word so ambiguous that a spy plane (and subsequently a band that named itself after it) has used the designation. I'm also having trouble seeing what the theme is, and two of the three items in the existing recipe require fluid already, so yeah, I'm not really seeing how a pile of concrete, or really of anything injected directly into the final assembly of a science pack is a good idea.

I'm generally used to science packs having a generally finicky back end, with a bunch of low crafting time parts being made by one or two machines per recipe, and once those are done, belted out to a relatively large number of final assembly machines. And there isn't really any way to buffer a "mall" item in a direct handoff situation, which is part of the problem in the rails for the "production" pack (scare quotes there.) The old greenie with the inserters and conveyors takes one of those items each, making it easy to overbuild its back end and 'F' the belt whenever you need to. It becomes impossible in the production pack rail situation. If it took a tiny number of rails, say 4, where each final machine needs one every five seconds on average, that becomes a useful way to set up a rail shop. At it also makes sense to wreck a much smaller length of rail in an experiment ...albeit, how does an experiment needing a furnace and production module consume rails at all? Still the theme problem.

I think that introducing a massive quantity of concrete to the yellow pack is simply going to give it the problems currently seen in the production pack, and I don't think that's the right direction.

Tricorius wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 7:43 pm But I feel like 99% of the arguing disagreement in these forums is because we all have a passionate vision of what “our personal Factorio” looks like.

Yeah, and I'm not expecting mine to be very common, so I mod my installation. A lot! This is why a major concern of mine with the #266 stuff is how much extra work it's creating for the modders for no good reason.

Again, I’m fine with it. It is a game. It isn’t intended to be a realistic simulation. Which is another reason that rails in a science recipe doesn’t really bother me. The dev team is solving for the “most common denominator” player base.

There isn't a problem with rails in a science pack generally, the theme problem is that this is a "production" science pack, and rails are just not a production item. Setting that aside, there's the numbers problem, which destroys the "mall" function the devs are aiming for because just so many rails makes it basically impossible to share a production line with a mall, and one might even need to secure a separate stone patch.

I would consider them (newer players and casual players) the “core player base”. Not those who have thousands of hours in modded games. I’m sure they have some metrics to show them the player spectrum.

That's really strange. It's the case with any game, or really any human endeavor, that the ones who put in the most time, energy, and work are at the center of the attention, the people whom the new and casuals can look to in order to save time and soften their own learning curve. Or, as the case may be, get the impression of a Thor's Drop learning curve that might not actually be there (e.g. if you're trying to learn the game, watching a speed run is probably not all that useful.) This isn't to say that new and casual players aren't important, but they aren't near the center. Think of who you would want to ask things regarding Factorio if you're new around here: Would it be the casual guy or the new guy, or would it be the players who have already been figuring things out and answering?

Adding pipes to green science is a step too far. Raw material cost is only one metric. Another metric is complexity, as determined by the number of assembler types needed to make a single flask.

Red science needs electricity and 2 kinds of assemblers - Iron Gear Wheel and Science Pack 1. One of these assemblers requires 2 inputs.

0.16 green science needs 6 kinds of assemblers - Iron Gear Wheel, Transport Belt, Copper Wire, Electronic Circuit, Inserter, and Science Pack 2. One of these assemblers requires 3 inputs. Unlike red science, 0.16 green science needs AM2s for the inserters.

0.16 blue science then involves pipes, oil wells, refineries, chemical plants, multiple outputs, and stockpiling of byproducts.

This is an excellent game progression.

Adding pipes to the second tier of seven science tiers and removing assembler input limits are both regressions. A possible minor improvement might be a slight speedup in the red science recipe to distinguish from later science tiers but if it ain't broke please stop fixing it.

Mike5000 wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:49 pm Adding pipes to green science is a step too far. Raw material cost is only one metric. Another metric is complexity, as determined by the number of assembler types needed to make a single flask.

How about not 'adding', but 'replacing' other ingredient?

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:06 pmThere's five at this point, but yeah.

Would you kindly satisfy my curiosity and point me to other three who do not belong in a thread about science changes? I hope you're not counting all the purple-hued posters, just because they held some power? I mean, assuming you even think about the same 2 firsts?

Avezo wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:06 pm

Mike5000 wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:49 pm Adding pipes to green science is a step too far. Raw material cost is only one metric. Another metric is complexity, as determined by the number of assembler types needed to make a single flask.

How about not 'adding', but 'replacing' other ingredient?

I like the first two science packs just as they are. Replacing any of the four total ingredients with a pipe significantly changes the primary balance by either seriously reducing the amount of iron needed, eliminating copper completely, or, in the case where the inserter is replaced, both.

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:06 pmThere's five at this point, but yeah.

Would you kindly satisfy my curiosity and point me to other three who do not belong in a thread about science changes? I hope you're not counting all the purple-hued posters, just because they held some power? I mean, assuming you even think about the same 2 firsts?

Three people who do not belong? That wouldn't be moderation anymore.

Avezo wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 9:06 pm

Mike5000 wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:49 pm Adding pipes to green science is a step too far. Raw material cost is only one metric. Another metric is complexity, as determined by the number of assembler types needed to make a single flask.

How about not 'adding', but 'replacing' other ingredient?

An interesting idea but considering the various green science ingredients that might be replaced by pipes I can't think of any approach that would be better than what we have now in 0.16.

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:37 pm
There isn't a problem with rails in a science pack generally, the theme problem is that this is a "production" science pack, and rails are just not a production item. Setting that aside, there's the numbers problem, which destroys the "mall" function the devs are aiming for because just so many rails makes it basically impossible to share a production line with a mall, and one might even need to secure a separate stone patch.

Agreed that having a thematic tie-in would be the ideal primary consideration.

I also agree that the sheer number of rails is huge, though I would say that *is* kinda consistently thematic for rails. I know I always significantly underestimate how many rails I will need for an expansion, even after having done many, many, many of them.

To the point where my end game solution is very likely the same as many others. I have a separate 4-car train with the sole purpose of expanding the rail network. Two (2) of those cars are completely full of rail.

I completely agree that I have a separate science feeder system and goods array for myself. But that is from experience knowing I will need that. My first few playthroughs I tried to do everything off a single area of each good or type of product. (This obviously doesn’t scale well.)

This is partly why I feel the devs are catering the game toward new/casuals.

After all, a game is not only fun, but is intended to print money for the developers (yes, I know there is a lot of nuance and complexity in this subject).

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:37 pm

I would consider them (newer players and casual players) the “core player base”. Not those who have thousands of hours in modded games. I’m sure they have some metrics to show them the player spectrum.

That's really strange. It's the case with any game, or really any human endeavor, that the ones who put in the most time, energy, and work are at the center of the attention, the people whom the new and casuals can look to in order to save time and soften their own learning curve.

Agreed. And if Factorio were simply a “labor of love” (which I feel like it is very high on the list for it to be), then that would be all that matters.

But developers have to eat too. If not, they have to find a boring, soulless job which diverts much (most? all?) of their energy from making really awesome games. They have already made a lot of money, and I’m guessing they are doing fine, but this *is* the drive to 1.0.

And a lot of negative reviews that say “it was fun for a few hours, but then I couldn’t figure out how to get past that stupid purple science” isn’t going to look great for ongoing sales.

Sucks, and it isn’t fair if you absolutely love Factorio. But I’d also like Wube to be financially viable and hopefully give me several womderful games over the next couple decades instead of flaming out on one, perfect, game.

featherwinglove wrote: Wed Jan 02, 2019 8:37 pm Think of who you would want to ask things regarding Factorio if you're new around here: Would it be the casual guy or the new guy, or would it be the players who have already been figuring things out and answering?

Again, agreed. But consider there is a flip-side to that. I have seen people come to these forums with a very simple “sticking point” question.

And half of the responses are something like “oh that is easy, but you’re stupid for building your entire base like that ... what you really want to do is build a production bus with jargon jargon jargon”.

And guess who tends to respond that way? We know we are being helpful, but what they really need is someone who hasn’t forgotten what it is like to be new

This is the same reason why I encourage the newer programmers I mentor to pair with more-experienced (and less-) developers. It is why I, myself, like to pair with newer programmers. They are super nervous, concerned I’m thinking “boy this guy is dumb to do that” when what I’m really thinking is “man...that was a way better way to approach that than I have done in the past”.

Hopefully that makes sense. But it is a diversion. Really I think what the veterans need to understand is that Factorio is buttoning up for 1.0.

We might not like the changes to come. We may want to go cry in a corner somewhere. But it is unlikely that the game will b completely ruined to the point we don’t want to play it anymore. It will still be Factorio if there are rails in Production Science.

Yes, I would cry all the way to the mod portal if my beloved logistics robots were nerfed or removed. Because it wouldn’t be “my Factorio”.

But if it sells enough after 1.0 to finance an expansion or two, or the “next great Wube title”, is that ok? For me, it is. For you, it might not be.