Factorio Forums

Ghost rail planer on LMB click changes plan starting position instead of creating a plan.
What i am doing:
1) Press Shift
2) LMB click on existing rail(without releasing shift)
3) LMB click on arbitrary point on map(without releasing shift

1. in the tutorial, you can only build rails over the ghost image.
2. don't use shift (yet)

You do seem to be jumping ahead. The objectives give clear instructions to place the rail over the ghost rails. Using shift will create new ghost rails, and the tutorial is deleting them for you (premature use). This is not normal gameplay behaviour.

I wouldn't go so far as to say it's "extremely bad" but it could let you know why it's deleting your rails.

I personally hate it when tutorials change game functionality. I think when you place a rail wrong it should place it, put a pop-up that says "No, I said to build over the ghost. Let me delete the rails you placed outside the ghost so we can try again." Then it can delete the rails and let you try again.

Just deleting the rails makes it seem like you can't build rails that way - a dangerous lesson for a totally new player.

It does seem to be an oversight, and I also wouldn't go so far to say it's extremely poor. Tutorials are difficult to create for every eventual outcome without being extremely restrictive or overbearing. Test cases for tutorials are probably even harder, and consist of many "what ifs" for how to do it wrong.

“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”
-- Douglas Adams

No offense meant o the OP here, they have just found a way to break the tutorial that hadn't been accounted for in play testing, but the programmer had made an attempt to guide/force the player to the desired goal. Strict test cases that account for all eventualities are difficult to create by someone who is familiar with the process, and similarly, testing by players with the same insights. The results are prejudicial to the desired outcome ie foolproof

Squelch wrote: Sat Sep 19, 2020 11:32 pm It does seem to be an oversight, and I also wouldn't go so far to say it's extremely poor. Tutorials are difficult to create for every eventual outcome without being extremely restrictive or overbearing. Test cases for tutorials are probably even harder, and consist of many "what ifs" for how to do it wrong.

“A common mistake that people make when trying to design something completely foolproof is to underestimate the ingenuity of complete fools.”
-- Douglas Adams

No offense meant o the OP here, they have just found a way to break the tutorial that hadn't been accounted for in play testing, but the programmer had made an attempt to guide/force the player to the desired goal. Strict test cases that account for all eventualities are difficult to create by someone who is familiar with the process, and similarly, testing by players with the same insights. The results are prejudicial to the desired outcome ie foolproof

Nope, this situation has nothing to do with foolproofness. It just extremely stupid tutorial. Tutorial is meant for new players - and it is absolutely stupid:
1) changes gameplay - it is something, that tutorials shouldn't do at all.
2) and places ghost rails without telling you, that this is ghost(because this ghost is indistinguishable from real rails by its look - it should have some color different from regular rails)

BigBrick wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:50 am[...]this ghost is indistinguishable from real rails by its look - it should have some color different from regular rails)

It is different. It has the exact same transparency that all other ghosts in the game do. You can even see the pattern of the "terrain" through them in your video. Built things don't do that.

BigBrick wrote: Sun Sep 20, 2020 3:50 am Nope, this situation has nothing to do with foolproofness. It just extremely stupid tutorial. Tutorial is meant for new players - and it is absolutely stupid:
1) changes gameplay - it is something, that tutorials shouldn't do at all.
2) and places ghost rails without telling you, that this is ghost(because this ghost is indistinguishable from real rails by its look - it should have some color different from regular rails)

I do sense and agree with your frustration, and I'll admit to having fallen foul of poorly scripted tutorials in other applications in a similar way. However, I would not go so far as to use the strong language.

The objectives are very clear except perhaps for one missing word that would clarify.

Use the rail planner to build over the ghosts

could really have the word existing added:

Use the rail planner to build over the existing ghosts

There are no other rails in view, so by deduction, the existing rails can only be the ghosts.

At no time are you instructed to use shift in combination with the rail planner - That is an advanced feature that is not intended to be introduced at this point.

Should there also be a system to, say, detect the use of RMB to mine/delete the ghosts? How many checks are needed to avoid straying from the goals and making the tutorial foolproof? Again, no offense meant, we're all guilty of that at some point.

So yes, the instructions are ambiguous in their current form, and yes, the method used to disable the advanced feature is clumsy and departs from standard gameplay.

To rectify these issues, the wording could be adjusted slightly, and a check for validity combined with a message as suggested by 5thHorseman would be preferable. Expanding a little, the ghost entities could also be flashed so there is absolutely no doubt about what they are.