Factorio Forums

irbork wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:26 pm There is another nice puzzle to solve now. It may be not so obvious at the first glance.
You will find out that there is just not enough heavy and light oil available now, without the old basic oil processing. It will require setting up coal liquefaction which was not useful previously, unless you had not much oil close by with a lot of spare coal. Finding the proper ration of basic oil processing, advanced oil processing and coal liquefaction will be very nice puzzle for advanced players who are starved for challenges.

That puzzle could be created, and the perceived issue of deadlocking refineries slowed, simply by reducing the amount of light and heavy oil basic oil processing creates. I'm not entirely sure how that would balance with megabases, but if part of the goal is to make coal liquefaction necessary in the same way eliminating these outputs do, then this is a solution without the negatives 305 brings.

Antaios wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:22 pm

Bilka wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:12 pm

Antaios wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:09 pm

irbork wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:06 pm But you need over twice as many fluid boxes to get more crude, not to mention about rail network load, so BOP may be not as UPS efficient compared to AOP as you may think.

It was tested.

That was pretty fast, do you have the test data somewhere to look at?

viewtopic.php?f=38&t=73684&start=360#p445973
I don't recall if there were others off the top of my head

-edit- heh, too slow

But is sounds great, late game, when you will need 300k PG/min and you will have enough mining productivity researched, you will have an option to save up some additional UPS.

Antaios wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:22 pm viewtopic.php?f=38&t=73684&start=360#p445973
I don't recall if there were others off the top of my head

-edit- heh, too slow

Hrm, that doesn't even factor in crude oil transport/extraction. And such different amounts of infinity pipes too, I'm not convinced. I'm looking forward to more realistic and comparable benchmarks in the future. Hopefully from the guys over at https://mulark.github.io/, they've produced reliable results in the past.

Bilka wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:36 pm

Antaios wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:22 pm viewtopic.php?f=38&t=73684&start=360#p445973
I don't recall if there were others off the top of my head

-edit- heh, too slow

Hrm, that doesn't even factor in crude oil transport/extraction. And such different amounts of infinity pipes too, I'm not convinced. I'm looking forward to more realistic and comparable benchmarks in the future. Hopefully from the guys over at https://mulark.github.io/, they've produced reliable results in the past.

put pumpjack on oil and refinery with BOP in front it. no crude oil transport is necessary. actually that is what I am going to do in my games now. to send a rocket efficiency is not needed.

"crude oil = petroleum" from now on. we can handle rest from coal liq.

honestly I would expect you guys do such calculations as devs with proper tools accessible and present them instead of citing external sources. you are the most reliable source as the patch proved since our solutions were not good and you have a wider scope than us.

V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:15 pm I'll just mention that the only real use for light oil was making efficient solid fuel previously. How much of it did you really spend for flamethrower?

I fed my outpost's flamethowers exclusively with light oil.

V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:18 pm That was an everpresent option A all the way until today's final discussions. Not better at all. I'd say almost all of the other suggestions were more or less superior to that.

You might have skipped this post then... viewtopic.php?f=38&t=73684&p=445760#p445760
It explains that BOP is (was) the least of all of the problems players had to deal with.

Jap2.0 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:07 am...so I'd just like to stop by and recommend that this be part of the changeset for 0.18.0, not 17.x - both because it's an increasingly large change (and sure, it's an experimental version, but you also said "why does it matter exactly which version we call stable?" so that point's partially moot), and more importantly, because I think that as time goes on the discussions I'm seeing are growing more and more productive. Adding another few months-year to think about it won't hurt it at all. (Additionally, it sounds like changes to a few GUIs that haven't been done yet might help - I've heard things about the status being a more central part of the gui, which may help, tutorials should get done at some point, iirc the notification system's getting redone at some point which may or may not open up possibilities, etc. Also on the point of tutorials: you're saying that them being the solution makes them forced, but not everyone has the problem in the first place, and therefore it's not the forced solution. Just sayin'.)

Ah well, so much for that.

Another potentially interesting idea I've seen mentioned but not addressed: direct fluid power generation and also fluids as vehicle power.

If I have time, I'm going to try to run a game up through blue science later. I've been pleasantly surprised with changes I was initially skeptical about earlier... but let me say that all of those were minor, especially in comparison to a central part of the game.

I'd also like to reiterate that 98% of the time advanced oil was used prior to this update, it was because it made more petroleum gas. The "most advanced" oil product. Sure, advanced oil may be more efficient, but why should I bother? It takes longer to set up, takes far more space (keeping 5 fluid lines separate + cracking), and really recently a lack of oil has been less of an issue than it was several major versions ago.

Jap2.0 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:49 pm

Jap2.0 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:07 am...so I'd just like to stop by and recommend that this be part of the changeset for 0.18.0, not 17.x - both because it's an increasingly large change (and sure, it's an experimental version, but you also said "why does it matter exactly which version we call stable?" so that point's partially moot), and more importantly, because I think that as time goes on the discussions I'm seeing are growing more and more productive. Adding another few months-year to think about it won't hurt it at all. (Additionally, it sounds like changes to a few GUIs that haven't been done yet might help - I've heard things about the status being a more central part of the gui, which may help, tutorials should get done at some point, iirc the notification system's getting redone at some point which may or may not open up possibilities, etc. Also on the point of tutorials: you're saying that them being the solution makes them forced, but not everyone has the problem in the first place, and therefore it's not the forced solution. Just sayin'.)

Ah well, so much for that.

Another potentially interesting idea I've seen mentioned but not addressed: direct fluid power generation and also fluids as vehicle power.

If I have time, I'm going to try to run a game up through blue science later. I've been pleasantly surprised with changes I was initially skeptical about earlier... but let me say that all of those were minor, especially in comparison to a central part of the game.

Not only was direct fluid power generation discussed, I added it in a mod I made during this conversation, which also introduces a parallel oil resource: https://mods.factorio.com/mod/adamo-carbon

Astrella wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:43 pm

FuryoftheStars wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:31 pmProfessional game designers know a tad more about game design that appeals to the mass market. That said, many of us were hoping we'd found one that wouldn't go down that road for once.

Hyperbole much?

Please feel free to tell me which part is a hyperbole.

Astrella wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:43 pm In the long run this change changes nothing to what you need to do to finish the game. All it does is being an attempt at redistributing the difficulty hurdles a bit. Not to mention it's an experimental release, so it's likely to still be iterated upon. There's been plenty of changes in the past that have been changed again after. Let them try out some stuff, let people mess around with it a bit and let them get feedback from the playerbase at large, not the small subsection they get through here.

It changes the way we play the game. "Finishing" the game isn't the fun part. It's the journey there. And this change does effect the flow and feel of the game.

Sure, it's experimental, but many of us tried pointing out to them that this wasn't the core of the issue they were trying to solve, and we tried begging them to take smaller steps in rather than leaping with sledgehammer in hand. Still didn't change their minds.

Adamo wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:51 pm

Jap2.0 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:49 pm

Jap2.0 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:07 am...so I'd just like to stop by and recommend that this be part of the changeset for 0.18.0, not 17.x - both because it's an increasingly large change (and sure, it's an experimental version, but you also said "why does it matter exactly which version we call stable?" so that point's partially moot), and more importantly, because I think that as time goes on the discussions I'm seeing are growing more and more productive. Adding another few months-year to think about it won't hurt it at all. (Additionally, it sounds like changes to a few GUIs that haven't been done yet might help - I've heard things about the status being a more central part of the gui, which may help, tutorials should get done at some point, iirc the notification system's getting redone at some point which may or may not open up possibilities, etc. Also on the point of tutorials: you're saying that them being the solution makes them forced, but not everyone has the problem in the first place, and therefore it's not the forced solution. Just sayin'.)

Ah well, so much for that.

Another potentially interesting idea I've seen mentioned but not addressed: direct fluid power generation and also fluids as vehicle power.

If I have time, I'm going to try to run a game up through blue science later. I've been pleasantly surprised with changes I was initially skeptical about earlier... but let me say that all of those were minor, especially in comparison to a central part of the game.

Not only was direct fluid power generation discussed, I added it in a mod I made during this conversation, which also introduces a parallel oil resource: https://mods.factorio.com/mod/adamo-carbon

Ah, I didn't realize that was part of your mod. That adds even more so to that fact that it remains unaddressed as a possible solution.


...I really don't have time to do 5 different playthroughs with different oil mods.

Hey Ho.

We recently upgraded our server to the newest version so we can test the new recipes and mechanics. We currently play around with a 1k SPM base. I must say, that the introduces changes are not that heavy. Planning a new factory for the rocket fuel took us around 60 minutes and the result is pretty compact and easy to copy. Even tho we had to lay out more pipes the result is pretty decent. Replacing the fuel against sulfur in the blue science factory was kinda easy to manage. The only downside is the production of lubricant - because you only get it wit AOP. Thank you for those changes and keep up the good work!

and there goes the complexity of the game.

you are stuck on 0.16 if you dont like the new GUI and now you are stuck pre 0.17.60 because somehow there is the need to simplify something that didn't need it. way better solotions proposed in the FFF#304

If players are BDU's then dont make it simpler because of them. nuff said.

Regarding the major changes:

Basic oil processing produces only Petroleum gas, for more streamlined oil setup in the beginning.
Chemical science pack requires Sulfur instead of Solid fuel.
Rocket fuel requires light oil.

Although I am not against the changes, I am against having them introduced in 0.17.60, I do not believe this is the right time for a change of this magnitude. Nor does this address the real issue, the all the other stuff that happens on a map about the time that chemical science is being assembled, and the amount of learning about base design that occurs at this stage of the game.

I would be OK If these changes was rolled out between 0.16.51 and 0.17.0 or between 0.17.xx and 0.18.0. I think that if these changes had been released after the the first stable version of 0.17. it would of been much less disruptive to players. I really like what V453000 did releasing Oil-Changes_0.1.0 for testing and feedback to test a hypothesis. I would also be OK if these changes only affected new maps at their creation.

Flamethrower ammo requires crude oil instead of heavy and Light oil.

Although this change is similar to the the ones listed in the top, it is does not have as big impact necessitating major redesign of bases mid game and as such I believe is manageable by players.

Laser Turrets, Lubricant, and Worker robots technologies need Chemical science pack.

I am OK with the laser turrets part. The Lubricant and worker robots part of this change is necessitated by changes with refining, and probably would not of happened if the refining changes were not implemented. And even if they did, they would not significantly impact existing maps.

Deathworld marathon preset was made a little bit easier.

I am OK with this. This does not affect created maps, and if someone wants the Pre-0.17.60 Deathworld settings, they can easily set ramp it up.

In conclusion I strongly support and endorse https://mods.factorio.com/mod/Pre0-17-60Oil that fixes what was broken on maps by 0.17.60.

Hiladdar

rhynex wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:45 pm [...]
"crude oil = petroleum" from now on.
[...]

Always has been
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Petroleum

Hiladdar wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:00 pm [...]
I would be OK If these changes was rolled out between 0.16.51 and 0.17.0 or between 0.17.xx and 0.18.0. I think that if these changes had been released after the the first stable version of 0.17. it would of been much less disruptive to players.
[...]

Explain how having more players having to deal with this change would have been less disruptive ?

Ah, right. I knew I was missing something I was going to add for reasons to leave this 'til .18. It's a minor thing, but... even you guys admit you're still working on it!

V453000 wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pm The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.

Yijare wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:59 pm and there goes the complexity of the game.

Complexity is still there, just in an other position. Honestly, if they change heavy oil on AOP back to 10, you might even need Coal liquefaction at some point.

EDIT: Link to balancing request: viewtopic.php?f=16&t=73829

irbork wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 6:26 pm There is another nice puzzle to solve now. It may be not so obvious at the first glance.
You will find out that there is just not enough heavy and light oil available now, without the old basic oil processing. It will require setting up coal liquefaction which was not useful previously, unless you had not much oil close by with a lot of spare coal. Finding the proper ration of basic oil processing, advanced oil processing and coal liquefaction will be very nice puzzle for advanced players who are starved for challenges.

I play super heavily modded (120+ mods) games these days, as vanilla did not satisfy enough long ago (2000 hours ago). Coal Liquifaction was a requirement based on the enormous amount of Lubricant needed in Bob's/AAI/SpaceX/etc so I loved their takes on it all. I just feel that this new change hands the solution to a puzzle before you even have a chance to solve it. It used to be a nice puzzle with an infinite number of solutions, but you got to solve it the way you wanted. Now, "here is a solution to this next puzzle, because we don't think you are capable of handling it." I am just disappointed that a "fix" was made to something that was not broken.

RocketManChronicles wrote: Tue Jul 30, 2019 7:23 pm I play super heavily modded (120+ mods) games these days, as vanilla did not satisfy enough long ago (2000 hours ago). Coal Liquifaction was a requirement based on the enormous amount of Lubricant needed in Bob's/AAI/SpaceX/etc so I loved their takes on it all. I just feel that this new change hands the solution to a puzzle before you even have a chance to solve it. It used to be a nice puzzle with an infinite number of solutions, but you got to solve it the way you wanted. Now, "here is a solution to this next puzzle, because we don't think you are capable of handling it." I am just disappointed that a "fix" was made to something that was not broken.

I agree.

I have a vanilla game that is running for almost 10k hours and the only thing coming from that is, that (again) a lot of stuff will be broken.

Kind of disappointing.

Thank you for the update, including the oil change.

As an EA game, none of the current complaints would even exist if this game had simply been released as 1.0 with no EA period at all. I still have complete faith that you know what you're doing, and after 1000+ hours of playing this game, these changes won't impact my desire to continue towards 2000+ hours in the slightest.

Now let the hyperbolic doomsday complaints continue...

I am looking forward to playing this version, it seems significant so I think I'll start anew. My last play-through from zero tech to advanced oil processing was not so important, and rocket fuel was a bit of a challenge for me to keep up on. So it's like you made these changes for the way I play. Thank you.

For future reference.
Until today, factorio ranked 2nd right behind Portal2 on Steam.