Factorio Forums

Idea

Concept is simple: Items that are so large, or heavy, that they cannot be transported by any current means (Player inventory; robots; inserters; belts)

These items need to be constructed at their final destination, or require significant infrastructure to move them around.
Anything made from these follows the same rules.

To handle them 3 types of buildings would be sufficient:

- Custom train carts (long and medium delivery)
- Heavy duty belt? (very short distances, requires energy, operates on demand)
- Gantry-like "inserter" (large energy demand, used to move items between factories, belts, and train carts)

Why?

From the first glance it only adds unnecessary difficulty, but there is a reason for it. The difficulty it introduces doesn't scale with resource acquisition, or research.

For example building first roboport is an ordeal, building second one is usually a piece of cake. This is mostly due to the fact, that most items and buildings have single upfront cost, after which they yield benefits for indefinite time.

For proposed items this will be only part of the item "cost". Second part would be the cost of establishing unloading stations - complexes that would be able to receive such heavy items. As such producing 100th item could be as demanding as producing 2nd. Mass production would be even more difficult.

Why different difficulty curve matters?

Balance.

Currently tank is a nice early alien eradication device, but it still cant compete with power armour, simply because it is so much cheaper. And by the time player is capable of making powerarmour he can probably mass-produce tanks and shells in ridiculous quantities, But as the aliens evolve, tank becomes a meager shadow of its former glory...

But making Tank MK2 that needs XXX modules and alien artifacts wont help - it would be mass produced quite fast anyway thus making the game too easy.


But what if you weren't able to simply put tank in your pocket?
What if the tank needs real assembly line to be produced? or repaired?
What if tank needs assembly line to reload its ammo?

Suddenly we are faced with constant difficulty managing the tank at operating condition. Now players would need rail network simply to be able to reload tank shells in reasonable time. And as aliens are defeated the new train stations need to be established.

This will tremendously nerf the current tank, but it would allow developers to make it much stronger, while keeping it balanced.

And this is just one example of many.

Possible uses

- Humongous building construction: not only things like tanks could be "rebalanced" but new buildings could be introduced as well. Ideal for any "end game" buildings.
- Bucket-wheel excavators
- Schwerer Gustav IMHO this would be ideal way to replace current turret creep, as long as it has significant radius (and causes all biters in the area to attack it indiscriminantely)
- Roboport trains anyone?
- Weaponized trains
- Automated tank and car refueling, repair, and reloading
- Riding the train while inside the tank on a train cart
- Modular vehicles?
- Could be used as difficulty modifier.
- Can be expanded into building construction as well (for example robots would only build structures out of intermediate materials and take some time, while heavy infrastructure would simply deliver and place prebuilt buildings)

Please be very carful with colors for text. Not everyone use the same style as you, and on light backgrounds the yellow is not good readable.

Fixed.

It's better, but I would still not use colors. There's always a problem if you use fixed colors. You could change the text size to make headlines.


The idea itself. I don't know if I want to add difficulty in this way. It sounds kind of nice, but could be annoying. I'll wait for the opinion of some other people. ^^

Ill keep the colour in mind in the future.

I came up with this idea while playing in challenge mode (Player has no defense and minimum of weaponry, can only use cars, tanks, and turrets) The lack of exosuits actually forced me to drastically change the way I construct my bases. They are more friendly to transport and railroads play a greater role.

Surprisingly it feels much more complete. instead of garbled mess of optimized construction I ended up with much more defined factories. They actually feel much more alive.


I can expect some construction being more tedious than it currently is, but ability to drive up to train station on a tank -> get loaded onto a wagon -> delivered to main base -> reloaded -> returned back certainly feels much more rewarding, than getting out of the tank to spam repair packs for probably similar amount of time.

Similar ideas (I searched for "Star Wars" cause this is often compared with the factory in part II.)
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=5049
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=2756
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=2241
https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=1351

Not exactly ssilk.

These suggestions are about assembly line construction.

My suggestion is not about that at all, it can be implemented as assembly system but the main point of this concept is complete player/robot/belt inability to craft and move such items thus introducing a logistical challenge.

I'm not really fond of excessive desire for realism in games, because at some point, you lose all the fun, and just get ... reality.

When you speak of large and heavy items needing to be built "on site", do you realize an assembling machine or an electric excavator are just like 3-4 times the size of your character ? To make it more realistic, you would also need things to be on scale. You wouldn't be able to put your car in your backpack, ...
And after the size, the time ... nope you can't make a green circuit in half a second, etc ...

I, more than all, enjoy the game mechanics when they draw the fun updards, not when they hinder it. I feel the fun part of Factorio is to organize your logiscics to make the things as automated as possible, and that's exactly what it is all about.

But (because there always have "but"s) I would love a visual change of how structures are placed on the ground. I loved how things seemed to build themselves from the ground when I played Dune 2000 or Command and Conquer 3. It's just a graphical change, but I think that would kick ass

all realism discussions put aside, it just feels strange to run around, then place an entire train somewhere out of your inventory.
if there would be a construction facility, connected to the rail network, which is fed with input materials and produces train parts, and it is made in a way that it doesnt complicate gameplay too much - then i would appreciate a change in this direction. same for other vehicles...

and +1 to this:

But (because there always have "but"s) I would love a visual change of how structures are placed on the ground. I loved how things seemed to build themselves from the ground when I played Dune 2000 or Command and Conquer 3. It's just a graphical change, but I think that would kick ass

main reason i lost countless hours to the settlers series

I would like to point out however, that this is not about realism.

While ability to carry hundreds of buildings and tanks seems dubious to me I understand that some sacrifices needs to be made or the game wont be enjoyable to play.


The main reason I want this implemented is different complexity curve. Pretty much everything in factorio depends mostly on 2 investments: initial research, and necessary infrastructure. As soon as these two are completed players are capable of mass-producing anything while resources last (and most of the time resources last a long time indeed)

This concept uses 3 "investments": 2 mentioned above and third one - building infrastructure to accept these large items at new locations. This continuous need for player input prevents these items from becoming too easy to mass produce. and as such it would allow developers to rebalance them making them much more powerful without worrying about them dominating entire playstyle.


Think about it this way - you could make a powerarmour with hefty upfront cost in materials and research, and it will work forever. OR you could make a powerful tank that might be even better than powerarmour in exterminating aliens, but you have to babysit it once in a while.

Sorry, but I have problems to understand, what that will bring for the gameplay.

ssilk wrote:Sorry, but I have problems to understand, what that will bring for the gameplay.

- Additional scale for challenge. Currently challenge is defined in game only by # or resources and # of biters which usually ends up making game grindier, not challenging. This design could be used for optional structures and vehicles that, while provide additional edge are not necessary for the completion of the game e.g. the comparison between powerarmour and tank i mentioned above.

- Extremely hard to mass produce. Currently if I have necessary research and good source of basic resources I can make thousands of anything. There is some thinking involved in the layout, but if you are trying to make only one thing it becomes extremely easy to do so. Proposed items would not only need larger and larger infrastructure to move around, but inability to be stored in containers and player inventory would make stockpiling them an arduous task for anyone daring to.

- I believe the main part of the game is not the player character, but the factory itself. Character is a limitation of the game, forcing players to design more sensible buildings with passages, transportation and protection. Currently this limitation can be circumvented partially by character's ability to carry an entire base in his inventory and car's trunk.

- Perfect Imbalance is also what I am looking for: currently everything is pretty much balanced around resource cost which leads to "BOTM" items in every category.

- Roboports vs. Belts: many players know that in the late game belts are actually better at many tasks, but require more player input than roboport "set and forget" mechanic. Well This suggestion is all about adding "belts" to the current game of "roboports only"

https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... ane#p34601

Yup, still like the idea. Maybe it'll get developed someday.

I'm torn on the large and heavy items things. I don't like how I can run around with a train in my pocket but I rationalized it to Capsule Corp from DBZ mostly and that fits the game. On the other hand tho I would really like to see a bridge crane in the game to move storage containers to flatbed trailers and have whole containers moved at a time instead of individual loading via inserterss

Also Awesome concept drawing DerivePi really shows how things should look

My opinion: As long, as this adds only complexity instead of some kind of new gameplay, I think it is not a clever idea.

But as I see it currently, it adds only complexity and problems. Things which are currently easy and straight through must be thought around the edge to solve them. For example the simple problem to add a train at an outpost is then extremely complex.

Or the problem with the car: Currently you drive with the car anywhere and forget the car. When you need your car it is miles away, so it is easier to use a new (or craft it). But with this this is no more an easy option.

I tried to make a better suggestion, but it is really hard in this case, cause I added also only complexity without adding much more gameplay (deleted a lot of stuff in this post).
Not saying, this is bad or so, maybe it needs some more weeks/month to find the "right turn", which brings this needed gameplay stuff into this idea.

ssilk wrote:My opinion: As long, as this adds only complexity instead of some kind of new gameplay, I think it is not a clever idea.

I keep seeing different variations of this in the forums on different suggestions and I'm against this as a reason to shoot down an idea. Right now belt splitters could be simple like the belt splitter mod where there are blockers and switchers and things like that, however, the devs don't do it because they like the complexity of taking a simple concept of the belt splitter and making complex contraptions to get the end result of what we want.

Yes complexity is not needed for simple complexity existence but that doesn't mean a new concept that forces new ways to see and do things should be shot down because it "seems" to only add complexity.
As many times as it has been added to the forums something should be (and has been... multiple times) discussed.

I will say anything over a 3x3 area starts getting bulky and takes up too much space. We are making factories and assembly lines as opposed to large one and done structures.

...just my 2 cents worth

ssilk wrote:My opinion: As long, as this adds only complexity instead of some kind of new gameplay, I think it is not a clever idea.

But as I see it currently, it adds only complexity and problems. Things which are currently easy and straight through must be thought around the edge to solve them. For example the simple problem to add a train at an outpost is then extremely complex.

Or the problem with the car: Currently you drive with the car anywhere and forget the car. When you need your car it is miles away, so it is easier to use a new (or craft it). But with this this is no more an easy option...

Playing a game like Factorio only adds complexity and problems. Disassociating complexity from gameplay, especially as it relates to this game, would require a doctoral thesis. I would find it hard to argue that everyone that enjoys a mod that adds 4 more levels of assemblers, steam generators, mining drills, transport belts, etc... is for complexity alone without some element of gameplay. (and hey, what about transport belts, fast belts and express belts?)

You mention the car problem - possible solution, let the player carry the car in their pocket and just limit the production of larger vehicles (tank for now) to the bridge cranes.
The train problem - yes, we would definitely need to have a small size train engine and freight cars for pocket storage. The reward for production of larger engines and freight cars could be increased speed, efficiency and capacity. Besides, what's the use of an outpost train station if it isn't already connected to the main base? (and if you didn't bring the large train with you - https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... ilit=fetch )

Most of the joy I get from playing this game is figuring out and planning how to arrange my factory. With bridge cranes and large item handling, there would be a need to plan for where these crane runways would be placed. They do not go around turns like transport belts and they need to coordinate with the railway system (another great joy in this game). And, as with liquid handling, you wouldn't be able to cheat by just throwing logistic bots at the problem since they shouldn't be able to carry these heavy items.

Garm wrote:- I believe the main part of the game is not the player character, but the factory itself. Character is a limitation of the game, forcing players to design more sensible buildings with passages, transportation and protection. Currently this limitation can be circumvented partially by character's ability to carry an entire base in his inventory and car's trunk.

- Perfect Imbalance is also what I am looking for: currently everything is pretty much balanced around resource cost which leads to "BOTM" items in every category.

- Roboports vs. Belts: many players know that in the late game belts are actually better at many tasks, but require more player input than roboport "set and forget" mechanic. Well This suggestion is all about adding "belts" to the current game of "roboports only"

- Well said!

DerivePi wrote:Playing a game like Factorio only adds complexity and problems. Disassociating complexity from gameplay, especially as it relates to this game, would require a doctoral thesis.

I say it so: Everything in Factorio was added into the game to solve some special problems. There where no belts in the very beginning. Well, they added belts to transport items from A to B. Then the train did come and then the robots. All that was added to solve special problems.
For the belts for example we have some suggestions like "Let's add need for power to the belts". Well they didn't, cause that adds just complexity without adding gameplay. They didn't add new types of belts, cause of that.
And to come back: What problem exactly will be solved by adding weight to items?

If someone can give me a good example, please.

I would find it hard to argue that everyone that enjoys a mod that adds 4 more levels of assemblers, steam generators, mining drills, transport belts, etc... is for complexity alone without some element of gameplay. (and hey, what about transport belts, fast belts and express belts?)

I won't discuss here, what's in the mods. Wrong example. The mods are made for fun by the modders. Many of them even say this. And there are many players outside, which like games with deeper complexity. But frankly: This is about suggestions to the core or base-mod. And things here are not implemented "just for fun" or "to add more complexity".
They are added, cause to make the game more playable, and in the end to sell more copies.

there would be a need to plan for where these crane runways would be placed. They do not go around turns like transport belts and they need to coordinate with the railway system (another great joy in this game). And, as with liquid handling, you wouldn't be able to cheat by just throwing logistic bots at the problem since they shouldn't be able to carry these heavy items.

Those are good ideas. But that doesn't need to change the current behaviour of items

Garm wrote:This suggestion is all about adding "belts" to the current game of "roboports only"

Should we call them better fabrication belts? Automation streets? Belts, where robot arms are on both side of the belt and things are mounted onto a "frame". Then I'm with you.

ssilk wrote:And to come back: What problem exactly will be solved by adding weight to items?

If someone can give me a good example, please.

I will speak from my own experience. As soon as logistic robots are implemented, the joy that comes from the creative process of planning and laying out a working factory is ruined by the overly simplistic process of setting up an "in" box, an "out" box and an assembler within the roboport coverage. If that were fun, I think people would pay to deliver mail (it's not fun). That is the problem for me.

Classifying some items as large/heavy is one way to diminish the impact log-bots can have. I would compare it to the choice of not allowing engine units to be handcrafted. Yes, it makes things more complicated, but for a good reason (regarding engines, it forces the player to set up an engine fabrication system - the "planning and laying out" fun).

I think it also helps further us towards some of the end game possibilities (spaceport, rocket parts, laser defense system, rocket engines, cockpit, life support, etc...).

I think there are two types of Factorio players - those who afraid of complexity and ready to complain and whine on it anytime, and those who want as much complexity and realism as possible.
If we will show the developers that there are not so few people that want more complexity, than they will possibly add in game at least some modding interfaces so we could implement everything ourselves.

I totally support the idea of heavy items!
But I propose even more.

5 different item weights - super-light, light, medium, heavy and super-heavy
5 different item sizes - tiny, small, medium, large and extra-large
And for each pair of weight/size there must be it's own rules of transportation mechanics
Crazy? I guess not

For whiners I would say next: this game is about construction and automaton, about mining, logistics and production. NOT about having "fun" shooting those poor helpless aliens. If you want shoot aliens - just play another game, ok?