For the record, diesel is most efficiently made from light oil, with heavy oil for lubrication. I mean, in reality.jim lee wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:45 am Burn it in engines, use it up lubricating machines.
I read somewhere, someone was going on about steam trains (coal/wood & water) Diesel (heavy oil for burning & light oil for lubrication) Would be fun.
-jim lee
Sorry if my previous post sounded a bit harsh or like a rant.jim lee wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:45 am Burn it in engines, use it up lubricating machines.
I read somewhere, someone was going on about steam trains (coal/wood & water) Diesel (heavy oil for burning & light oil for lubrication) Would be fun.
-jim lee
That could work.BlueTemplar wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 2:20 pm Well, as long as we're repeating the same suggestions forever and ever, allow me to "contribute" with one suggestion that hasn't been reposted in a while :
BOP : (Crude) Oil => (Solid) Sulfur + Petroleum Gas
(and perhaps no Sulfur from Petroleum Gas or make that recipe very inefficient)
Pre-0.17.60, the main issue was having to learn pipeworks in addition to the multiple fluid outputs backing up - a multiple 1 fluid + 1 item output seems like it might be the right complexity at that point ?
Well, yes, Factorio being a "freeplay game" (even if devs add a great campaign), this is the only way ?Deadlock989 wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:30 pm We're seriously suggesting adding new science packs?
Where does this "smoothing out" stop? When all of freeplay is one big tutorial for beginners?
Yeah, I doubt that adding yet another mode is viable, extending Marathon/Expensive to also have recipes with different components and a different tech tree seems to be the way to go ?mmmPI wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2019 2:50 pmI do like this options, though i've been warn it's unlikely, the problem it raises is the balancing, not as much as right now, but for every other little change later, you'd need to plan their consequences on each different setup that the game propose as a tickbox, contrary to a mod, that puts the task on the modders , or the end user to setup more precisely what is needed/wanted.mcdjfp wrote: Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:44 pm
Edit: To me it seems that the closest that one can get to satisfying everyone is to offer as many configuration options as possible so players can tweak the difficulty the way they want. Mods help with this, but are negatively impacted when features that they take advantage of (see mining hardness) are removed
For those reasons i do not have much hope in this :viewtopic.php?f=6&t=73768 ( suggestion for a new " complex" mode aside from the "expensive" )
Maybe the closer to version 1, the more realistic it would seems, since there might not be much change planned afterwards making it possible to introduce many different starting setups/receipes with less consequences for balance, but who knows.
Here you go :Theikkru wrote: Wed Aug 07, 2019 9:40 pm [...]
Unfortunately, I don't have a selection of Factorio noobs available to me to run experiments upon, so I cannot provide a direct example myself.
[...]
V453000 wrote: Wed Aug 07, 2019 6:12 pm [...]
4. Mods are absolutely the solution to more replayability, more complexity and more of everything. Didn't the mining hardness get a supplementary feature like mining groups or how it's called that allows the same functionality?
[...]
I'm pretty sure that he's referring to this thread :mcdjfp wrote: Wed Aug 07, 2019 7:13 pm [...]
I keep track of the Friday Facts (and sometimes read other posts as well) and the closest thing I ran across was a suggestion to use categories in place of temperature. Anyways, the post where mining hardness was removed declared that mods wouldn't be able to put it back. "So, the internal mechanics for these two things were removed and mods cannot bring them back." according to Bilka. (pickaxe and mining hardness). If the intention was to replace them with a different mechanic, it was not communicated very well.
[...]
The ratios are “more favorable” because 90% of the final/intermediate products can be made from PG. Pre-17.60 the only fluids I was transporting in a 1kspm base was PG and Lubricant. Balancing what oil makes what products and what products are used in each science pack resolves the problem.Takayomu wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:20 pm Advanced oil's obvious benefit is its more favorable ratios (10:45:55) and 10 units extra output product, but it's interesting that it's not strictly superior to basic oil because it produces less heavy oil.
It's certainly not more balanced if a player wants to use much solid fuel.Zaka wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:50 pmThe ratios are “more favorable” because 90% of the final/intermediate products can be made from PG. Pre-17.60 the only fluids I was transporting in a 1kspm base was PG and Lubricant. Balancing what oil makes what products and what products are used in each science pack resolves the problem.Takayomu wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:20 pm Advanced oil's obvious benefit is its more favorable ratios (10:45:55) and 10 units extra output product, but it's interesting that it's not strictly superior to basic oil because it produces less heavy oil.
Shameless plug, but check my sig. I'm maintaining the Diesel Locomotive mod now that allows for locos to have fluid fuel input. Still working on some changes adaptations, etc.
As someone who does programming (albeit small time, and no, not talking about modding), a piece of code that you're not going back into and making corrections/updates no longer has a maintenance overhead (unless you're talking about something huge that takes a lot of disk space and/or compile time). They removed it because they wanted to add different functionality to the rail planner's binding keys. They could have just as easily put it to a different binding key from the start. They only restored it because we kept asking about it, not because they realized any advantages with it. *shrug*Koub wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 6:15 amActually something being useless is a very valid reason fot it to be removed. Less code maintenance is always a good thing.FuryoftheStars wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:19 amIt was removed because they felt it was useless. This is not a “good reason”.DanGio wrote: Thu Aug 08, 2019 7:51 pm IMO, the rail planner sequence is an additional proof of their dedication. They implemented an nice feature, removed it for good reasons, and then reimplemented it as several players said they missed it. The lazy, easy-money path would have been "let it just be in an unfinished state, people are used to it like it is anyway".
The issue with that was that it was not as useless as the devs thought, and the advantages restoring it outweighted the potential drawbacks (from the devs' point of view).
Pre-17.60 Science:Adamo wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:09 pmIt's certainly not more balanced if a player wants to use much solid fuel.Zaka wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:50 pmThe ratios are “more favorable” because 90% of the final/intermediate products can be made from PG. Pre-17.60 the only fluids I was transporting in a 1kspm base was PG and Lubricant. Balancing what oil makes what products and what products are used in each science pack resolves the problem.Takayomu wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:20 pm Advanced oil's obvious benefit is its more favorable ratios (10:45:55) and 10 units extra output product, but it's interesting that it's not strictly superior to basic oil because it produces less heavy oil.
Code: Select all
Oil Fraction Lubricant SolidFuel Plastic Sulfer
Heavy Oil 10 to 10 20 to 1 0 0
Light Oil 0 10 to 1 0 0
Pet Gas 0 20 to 1 20 to 2 30 to 2
Code: Select all
Oil Fraction Lubricant SolidFuel Plastic Sulfer Rocket Fuel
Heavy Oil 10 to 10 20 to 1 0 0 0
Light Oil 0 10 to 1 0 0 10 to 1
Pet Gas 0 20 to 1 20 to 2 30 to 2 0
Code: Select all
Oil Fraction Unique SolidFuel Sulfer
Heavy Oil Lubicant 0 10 to 1
Light Oil RocketFuel 10 to 1 20 to 1
Pet Gas Plastic 20 to 1 0
Huh? The interesting thing about oil is that you don't get exactly what you want, and the ratios at which you want oil products changes over the course of the game. With basic oil processing, your only choice is to send light and heavy oil to tanks (or start making solid fuel out of them to power your factory), while you use the petrol for plastic. Later, you have more choices: advanced oil, cracking, and coal liquefaction. It's not up to the game to match the ratios of what you need with the ratios of what you get before cracking. Cracking at least lets you use whatever you've got too much of.Zaka wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:16 pm-snip-Adamo wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:09 pmIt's certainly not more balanced if a player wants to use much solid fuel.Zaka wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:50 pmThe ratios are “more favorable” because 90% of the final/intermediate products can be made from PG. Pre-17.60 the only fluids I was transporting in a 1kspm base was PG and Lubricant. Balancing what oil makes what products and what products are used in each science pack resolves the problem.Takayomu wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:20 pm Advanced oil's obvious benefit is its more favorable ratios (10:45:55) and 10 units extra output product, but it's interesting that it's not strictly superior to basic oil because it produces less heavy oil.
Create a balanced use for the oil fractions, then balance the refinery outputs.
Please remember that oil cracking is a one-way process.
As far as "a lot of" solid fuels goes, the coal liquefaction process that supplies nuclear fuel to my trains works great.
Factorio is a game of options, there is no "correct" way to do things. The change to basic oil processing REMOVED some of those options and that is what we are arguing about.
Resolving the issue by providing 3 basic oil refinery recipes and distributing the ratio of the final products used in the science packs goes a long way toward resolving the "oil wall".
The 3 basic oil refinery recipes also provides the same ability to build Construction Bots pre-Blue Science that makes the game more user friendly.
Yes water is required for blue science now, as it's in the sulfur recipe. It doesn't have to go to your refinery area per se but I don't see any particularly good reasons not to do it that way.Takayomu wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:25 am Also, am I missing something, or is this new oil system going to require you to have your oil factory supplied with oil AND water, since blue science now needs sulfur, and sulfur needs water and petrol?
Takayomu Thank you for your post based on your experience. It is an excellent example of mid-game challenges players face juggling multiple critical problems at the same time, both pre-60 and post-60 Factorio.Takayomu wrote: Sat Aug 10, 2019 9:25 am
...
If anything, I thought there was more of a wall _after_ blue/grey science. My first iron patch ran out, so I had to train it in from farther away. Oil deposit was also a few seconds drive away, so now I'm running 3 separated bases, and I'm tired of repairing the turrets, while the biters and spitters are getting stronger. So, sulfur, sulfuric acid, batteries > laser turrets. Now I need more power, and would like to do it with less pollution since that seems to attract the biters and drive up evolution. So, solar+accumulators (didn't notice at first that I could already make a useful-sized accumulator array with the extra batteries on hand). Coal patch ran out earlier too, so good thing I can make solid fuel out of the light oil, while I take in coal by car for the grenade line, for the grey science. Got nuclear power after this to put an end to the brownouts and let me switch to less polluting electric furnaces, which I just put next to the new copper patch and half-depleted iron patch instead of demolishing my current steel furnace line.
Then I move on to a purple/yellow science line.
...
I’m highly impressed with your daughter (and you also, crambaza)...the only Factorio that actually challenges me anymore is Death World Marathon...but ONI obliterates me. Like...I cry by the end of an attempted play through. :pcrambaza wrote: Tue Aug 06, 2019 4:34 pmLOL.Preserteo wrote: Tue Aug 06, 2019 9:35 am I have also uninstalled the game after more than 2500 hours and playing almost every day. The shot has been that my 11-year-old daughter has literally told me: "Now that is super easy," and now prefers to play the "Oxygen not included."
A pity that has stopped listening to the players that we have pushed many others to play and support and decisions are made thinking about players that do not yet exist.
Sorry for my english.
I did the exact same thing! I loaded up Oxygen Not Included for the first time, called my world "Factorio Oil Change Sux", and started. I was happy to play a game that challenged me. Even complicated steps involving a bunch of machines. I didn't quit it, I kept playing.
It's so funny you said this!
I like the last suggestion but I have an addition. I am trying to make my own oil processing mod and saw the below articleZaka wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 8:16 pmPre-17.60 Science:Adamo wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 5:09 pmIt's certainly not more balanced if a player wants to use much solid fuel.Zaka wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 4:50 pmThe ratios are “more favorable” because 90% of the final/intermediate products can be made from PG. Pre-17.60 the only fluids I was transporting in a 1kspm base was PG and Lubricant. Balancing what oil makes what products and what products are used in each science pack resolves the problem.Takayomu wrote: Fri Aug 09, 2019 3:20 pm Advanced oil's obvious benefit is its more favorable ratios (10:45:55) and 10 units extra output product, but it's interesting that it's not strictly superior to basic oil because it produces less heavy oil.
Chemical (Bule) – Solid Fuel (HO/LO/PG) and Plastic (PG)
Production (Purple) – Plastic (PG)
Utility (Yellow) – Plastic (PG), Sulfur (PG), Lubricant (HO)
Space (White) – Plastic (PG), Sulfur (PG), Solid Fuel (HO/LO/PG)
It appears that we only need 2 refined oil products. Light Oil is completely useless.Code: Select all
Oil Fraction Lubricant SolidFuel Plastic Sulfer Heavy Oil 10 to 10 20 to 1 0 0 Light Oil 0 10 to 1 0 0 Pet Gas 0 20 to 1 20 to 2 30 to 2
Yes, I know it’s more efficient for Solid Fuel, but is it completely unnecessary.
Post-17.60 Science
Chemical (Bule) – Sulfur (PG) and Plastic (PG)
Production (Purple) – Plastic (PG)
Utility (Yellow) – Plastic (PG), Sulfur (PG), Lubricant (HO)
Space (White) – Plastic (PG), Sulfur (PG), Solid Fuel (HO/LO/PG), Light Oil (LO)
So what does this tell us?Code: Select all
Oil Fraction Lubricant SolidFuel Plastic Sulfer Rocket Fuel Heavy Oil 10 to 10 20 to 1 0 0 0 Light Oil 0 10 to 1 0 0 10 to 1 Pet Gas 0 20 to 1 20 to 2 30 to 2 0
Light Oil finally has a use in white science.
Suggestions:
Basic Refining with 3 recipes:Resulting in New Science (based on 17.60):Code: Select all
Oil Fraction Unique SolidFuel Sulfer Heavy Oil Lubicant 0 10 to 1 Light Oil RocketFuel 10 to 1 20 to 1 Pet Gas Plastic 20 to 1 0
Chemical (Bule) – Sulfur (HO/LO) and Plastic (PG)
Production (Purple) – Plastic (PG)
Utility (Yellow) – Plastic (PG), Sulfur (HO/LO), Lubricant (HO)
Space (White) – Plastic (PG), Sulfur (HO/LO), Solid Fuel (LO/PG), Rocket Fuel (LO)
-
Create a balanced use for the oil fractions, then balance the refinery outputs.
Please remember that oil cracking is a one-way process.
As far as "a lot of" solid fuels goes, the coal liquefaction process that supplies nuclear fuel to my trains works great.
Factorio is a game of options, there is no "correct" way to do things. The change to basic oil processing REMOVED some of those options and that is what we are arguing about.
Resolving the issue by providing 3 basic oil refinery recipes and distributing the ratio of the final products used in the science packs goes a long way toward resolving the "oil wall".
The 3 basic oil refinery recipes also provides the same ability to build Construction Bots pre-Blue Science that makes the game more user friendly.