XT-248 wrote: Sun Jan 26, 2025 5:34 am
When I initially tested some defense strategies on Gleba, I found that very little to nothing about defending against biters/worms was applicable to Gleba natives.
A defense perimeter of turrets and walls? Stomper walks over the wall and potentially becomes aggressive due to the presence of turrets.
Strafer spawns wriggler on top of the turrets and, as the namesake implies, strafe instead of moving in close.
I didn't ask for new enemies to act the same way as Nauvis fauna. I accepted and dealt with Vulcanis Demolishers of various sizes, for instance.
Yet, at the same time, Gleba's fauna is different enough that new players will have problems adjusting after Nauvis.
No, you want them to behave same as Nauvis from that checklist. You don't have complaints about Demolishers because you don't
defend your factory from them. Vulcanus is all-offense. Nauvis teaches you what the basic tools are, how to keep them running, managing enemy spawners in the factory area to stay ahead of evolution, placement of defenses for interlocking fire... Do you even landmine? It's okay to be frustrated that you're struggling with a solution to a particular Factorio problem. You used the blueprints of others to facilitate a speedrun, so I'm not sure why you don't just simply look up Gleba defense strategies.
I am not mixing those two kind of players as if they are the same kind of players.
"Introducing" new Gleba mechanics is all dumped almost back-to-back, giving new players little time to adjust and learn the mechanics.
Speedrunner has to deal with the Gleba factory potentially failing and costing them the attempt, as time is a limited currency. See my next post.
When did I mix the two categories of players up? I am asking because I clarified several times that they aren't the same, and I want to improve my communication.
You're switching between them often enough that I have a difficult time parsing specifics between the two paradigms. I get the impression that you're making a complaint about one under the guise of the other. I don't think you're doing so intentionally, just that it's how it appears to me.
What inconsistency? You made it sound like I played Space Age for 2k hours when I didn't make that claim.
I responded to skepticism about how much of an 'expert' I am with Factorio by pointing out that I have thousands of hours of gameplay with Factorio.
I did not mention how much time I spent with Space Age, partially because there isn't a reliable way to track time spent playing with Space Age. Steam treats Factorio 1.1, Factorio 2.0 without Space Age, and Factorio 2.0 with Space Age as a singular number of total hours spent.
Since its release date, I have had at most a hundred hours of free time to play Space Age at my best guess, and even then, I didn't spend all of that time on Space Age.
Those statements are not mutually exclusive, and thus, there is consistency.
You complain that it simply takes too much time to master an expansion that effectively or factually more than doubles the content of Factorio that's only been public since late October. You spent a few thousand hours mastering vanilla and you're complaining because you can't master
a part of this massive expansion
on your specific terms in whatever weekend time you can cobble together in what amounts to three months
now. That's an easy inconsistency to identify.
It doesn't matter why or how the blueprint/factory failed. The point that I am still trying to get you to understand is that when it does, it fails. It is frustrating that I spent hours doing whatever it was at the time only to find something failed or not working and not knowing why. See my next post.
Then I started to follow the trail of how something failed (no agricultural science, no flux, the particularities don't matter here), and it turns out that something went wrong with the Gleba Factory. Production charts only show what was being produced but not the particularises in how it failed or ceased producing.
The damage was already done by then, and I tried to revert to an earlier save game. However, I still couldn't find the cause for the failure as the earlier Gleba save game continued well past the fail timeframe without incident.
That is not the first or last time I have had to diagnose what went wrong with Gleba without data or even the only situation I have encountered, but it illustrates that dealing with Gleba is a bottomless well of dissatisfaction.
I tried empathizing. I offered to look at your blueprints. Hell, I'd be willing to look at your save. But you seem hellbent on complaining and not learning. Good luck with your speedrun, though I doubt you'll ever get it at this rate.
Let's review why I made that flippancy comment and what I was trying to do.
No. Let's not.
You decided it was okay to stoop to personal insults. I don't particularly care why. I gave you an offer that I'd look past such conduct, but perhaps I too heavily implied rather than specified that said offer required the minor concession of the point regarding personal time and it didn't even require public acknowledgement from you but simply keeping quiet about it.
You won't succeed justifying your comments in this regard because you can't. I recommend a more constructive use of your time involves focusing more on those many competing priorities you mentioned earlier, because you show no interest in a productive discussion. You spend an awful amount of time complaining about wasting time to people offering help.