Re: Friday Facts #200 - Plans for 0.16
Posted: Sat Jul 22, 2017 3:55 am
Fluid squashing?
FasterJump wrote:Every week I hoped for a FFF where the devs would say:
"We figured out that endgame gameplay on default settings is not satisfying. Players spend their time only to make up for the ore patches depletion, instead of actually improving their resource-generation setups. So we decided to implement dirty mining in a future update."
Sourceslpwnd wrote:Dirty mining. (Way to get more resources from mining posts at a cost of additional industry, logistics requirements and investment)
We decided to not do this, the mining productivity research seems to be solving the problem.
I notice dev want to make artillery train.TheVeteraNoob wrote:Fluid squashing?
You can essentially do this using shift-click to draw train tracks. Or is that not what you mean?Hellatze wrote:But I hope we can draw railway in the map first before that. (Using train robots)
*Inserts Manglepork Railword reference*Klonan wrote:...There are no especially large lakes to work your way around...
The devs tried putting such things in. The biters kept eating them all.Alice3173 wrote:Some innocuous wildlife other than the biters would also help make things feel a bit better as well
Just to illustrate the point...BHakluyt wrote:Regarding map gen, please make when setting resource frequency to very low that it spawns even less patches and further from each other for awesome railworld games. Currently vanilla mapgen spawns too much resource patches, it looks bad and is annoying
TOGoS wrote:This can warp landforms in a way that looks a bit like the result of plate tectonics.
To me it looks more like a lava lamp than any sort of realistic terrain.cohem wrote:The terrain in this image looks good
I believe the point is:waduk wrote:I mean, if they behave just like regular train (scheduled based) then what's the point ?
Yes, please. (There are many good ideas on making terrain matter in this thread, though implementing them all would seem far too much for a game so late in development. But "super worms" is something which should be fairly easy to add - just a recoloring and some new stats and done. Maybe have them highly resistant to all damage types except nukes!)ske wrote:There could even be some worms so big and strong that you have to leave them alone till late in the game. These super strong worms would protect really big ore patches and you have to build your rail around that in order to get to smaller ore patches that are less protected.
If you're finding that there are too many resource deposits, make sure frequency is set to very low together with size very big. That should give much more room to work with and much bigger and richer resource deposits (especially if you go w/ very high richness too).NotABiter wrote:The devs tried putting such things in. The biters kept eating them all.Alice3173 wrote:Some innocuous wildlife other than the biters would also help make things feel a bit better as well
Just to illustrate the point...BHakluyt wrote:Regarding map gen, please make when setting resource frequency to very low that it spawns even less patches and further from each other for awesome railworld games. Currently vanilla mapgen spawns too much resource patches, it looks bad and is annoying
So I'm playing with "railworld" type settings (map string at end of this post), and I find a good-sized iron deposit outside of my starting area. Time to set up some larger (than my current base) iron production - iron smelting, steel smelting, gears production, along with some train stops to export iron plates, steel plates, and gears, to accept iron ore, a PAX station, a supply station, and a stacker. No problem, right? Wrong. If I build to the north I'm on top of uranium and coal, to the west I'll end up on top of coal, to the south and I'm on top of uranium and oil and coal. To the east - well that's where the iron deposit is (and then my main NS line -- and that's where it is because I had to carefully place it to avoid major deposits - still cut a stone deposit in half). I end up squeezing something in between all of the deposits, but it's quite cramped -- I end up having to "build small", or at least smaller than I would have liked. Why am I tripping over deposits like this on "railworld" settings? WHY??? I'm *belting* iron plates made at that iron deposit to my copper smelting + green circuits "outpost" (colocated with a major copper deposit) not only because they were so close to each other but because the copper outpost was also so lacking in space that I didn't have room to give it an iron plates import station (or a supply station, so I'm also belting fuel up from the iron outpost's supply station). Later when I made a separate gears outpost I ended up landfilling a bunch of lake just to have enough room to build it.
I've got lots of radars looking for a good place to build - just some nice big open place somewhere, anywhere. I'm not even looking for enough space to build a whole factory in one place, just one good sized outpost. There are none that I can see. I've got a stack of nukes ready to help me expand my controlled territory yet again, but I don't really have much hope of finding such a place.
How hard can it be to add "Super Low" and "Ultra Low" resource frequencies to the game? Do the devs really not see the value in that? Or is there some other catch? They tried it... and their computers blew up? What? I don't get it.
If resources could be at least twice as far apart as they are now on "Very Low" resource frequencies, then there'd at least be room to build. I'd think a proper "railworld" would have them even farther apart than that though - probably 8 times or more farther apart. (Players with RSO experience could give more informed opinions on what range of spacing provides a good experience.)
One possibly contributing factor: Maybe the game isn't taking resource size into account when implementing resource frequency -- larger resources having the same on-center distance results in less space between resources. (My current game is large/rich resources, expensive recipes, expensive science -- I wanted a reason to actually build big in Factorio, and now that I have such a reason... the game isn't cooperating. I could just landfill an ocean, but that kind of feels wrong, just like building on top of resources does, and neither changes the fact that "railworld" settings are not really railworld settings.)
TOGoS wrote:This can warp landforms in a way that looks a bit like the result of plate tectonics.To me it looks more like a lava lamp than any sort of realistic terrain.cohem wrote:The terrain in this image looks good
I believe the point is:waduk wrote:I mean, if they behave just like regular train (scheduled based) then what's the point ?
* look cool (be all "steampunky")
* provide a way to keep back biter bases (defense) that isn't overpowered
While it can shoot at individual enemies, I believe it's intended purpose is really enemy bases - to have some way to automatically kill bases that pop up near your walls so you don't have constant attacks that then need manual intervention. There's no "crossing of fingers" necessary when used for that purpose - the enemy bases will still be there the next time the train comes 'round (and you can use the 0.15.x map view feature to then watch them get destroyed).
Yes, please. (There are many good ideas on making terrain matter in this thread, though implementing them all would seem far too much for a game so late in development. But "super worms" is something which should be fairly easy to add - just a recoloring and some new stats and done. Maybe have them highly resistant to all damage types except nukes!)ske wrote:There could even be some worms so big and strong that you have to leave them alone till late in the game. These super strong worms would protect really big ore patches and you have to build your rail around that in order to get to smaller ore patches that are less protected.
*sigh*Frightning wrote:If you're finding that there are too many resource deposits, make sure frequency is set to very low together with size very big. That should give much more room to work with
you mean we can draw train tracks using map ?Xiphoris wrote:You can essentially do this using shift-click to draw train tracks. Or is that not what you mean?Hellatze wrote:But I hope we can draw railway in the map first before that. (Using train robots)
If you hold shift when you click on the rail planner arrow, you'll enter a mode where you can place down ghost rail tracks. Unlike the regular rail planner, the maximum length of the rail line is unlimited. So you can enter map view, scroll over to an expansion base, zoom in, and click to place the end of the track. Ghost rails will be laid all the way to it.
From there, using vanilla Factorio, you can drive along the train track using a personal roboport to place rail using construction robots. Or if you have the Fully Automated Rail Layer (FARL mod, then you can instruct it to drive along the track placing rail, which it will do at full speed.
The way resource spawning works, the parameters Frequency and Size each influence both, the actual frequency and the actual size. So when you set the Frequency of an ore to very low but its size to very high the result is a somewhat high frequency, if you use low frequency and small size then the ore does not spawn at all.NotABiter wrote:As indicated in my post (and in the post I linked, and as you can verify by loading the map string from the linked post into Factorio 0.15.9), I already *AM* using "Very low" frequency for iron, copper, stone and coal (and "Low" for uranium and crude - i.e. exactly the same frequency settings as Factorio's "Rail world" setting). That's the whole point - "Very low" is as low as the map creation screen supports, and it's not *NEARLY* low enough.