Factorio Forums

For rail placement, a suggestion:

Get rid of the distinction between manually placing and "planning", which thus frees up the shift key to toggle between ignore-obstacles and avoid-obstacles. So, if you try to place some rails within manual build distance and you have rails in inventory, they get placed immediately. Otherwise, ghosts get placed and the construction bots handle it.

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

kovarex wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 pm

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

*cheer*

Thank you very, very much!

kovarex wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 pm

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

Yay! Thank you!

kovarex wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 pm

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

Awesome! Thanks

kovarex wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 pm

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

Thanks

kovarex wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 pm

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

Yes ! After three months, it finally come back !

kovarex wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 pm

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

To turn a recent post's tone on itself, this is why I *do* play unstable builds.

kovarex wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 pm

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

All praise the kovarex enrichment process!

kovarex wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 pm

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

um, yay and all that, but i am surprised that THIS convinced you, and not the mountain of criticism in the topics (FFF and release?) where you guys announced that you're disabling it. :v

Shingen wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 17, 2019 2:43 pm

kovarex wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 16, 2019 10:54 pm

Ok, you convinced me.
I added a "Build with obstacle avoidance" control settings entry. CONTROL + Left mouse click is default value.

um, yay and all that, but i am surprised that THIS convinced you, and not the mountain of criticism in the topics (FFF and release?) where you guys announced that you're disabling it. :v

I don't *know* this is what happened, but as a developer who sometimes turns off features: you expect there to be a million people ignoring the announcements ahead of time, then screaming the day you turn it off...

...and two weeks later, silence, because nobody really misses the feature after all. So, if people talk about missing it weeks or months later that is much more likely to be "they really miss the feature" and much less "they imagine they are going to miss the feature."

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the "mountain of criticism" had less weight because people hadn't tried the new thing yet, and most of the time - clearly, not this one - they will be happier with it.

slippycheeze wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 17, 2019 6:23 pm

I don't *know* this is what happened, but as a developer who sometimes turns off features: you expect there to be a million people ignoring the announcements ahead of time, then screaming the day you turn it off...

...and two weeks later, silence, because nobody really misses the feature after all. So, if people talk about missing it weeks or months later that is much more likely to be "they really miss the feature" and much less "they imagine they are going to miss the feature."

I wouldn't be surprised if the reason the "mountain of criticism" had less weight because people hadn't tried the new thing yet, and most of the time - clearly, not this one - they will be happier with it.

Yes, exactly. This. For example, I thought I'd really dislike the item limitation removal in assemblers, but it turns out that it isn't that important because only level 2 assemblers can accept fluids, and that's a much more natural progression anyway.

I knew I'd really dislike this change long-term because it's completely at odds with how I like to build factories. But, I can well understand choosing to wait after an initial outcry. Oftentimes people are really bad at knowing what they do and don't like.

When I was six, I insisted I loved anchovies on my pizza simply because someone told me I shouldn't have them. It turned out that I was wrong.

I suggest that the rail system should be reverted to it's state from any of the 2016 releases .... not criticising the old system, but people would really appreciate the current system when it is turned back on!

Me too likes the comeback of the "Build with obstacle avoidance" feature - never expected to miss it before it was gone.
Most of the time i am happy with the new american-style just-bomb-the-cliffs routing but early game and for outpost connections the old way is better.

SkiCarver wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:36 pm

I suggest that the rail system should be reverted to it's state from any of the 2016 releases .... not criticising the old system, but people would really appreciate the current system when it is turned back on!

That depends on whether the rail-bridge-enabling "bug" was already in the engine back then...

Omnifarious wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:06 pm

When I was six, I insisted I loved anchovies on my pizza simply because someone told me I shouldn't have them. It turned out that I was wrong.

Well, everyone is entitled to their opinion, even if their opinion is objectively wrong.

...but, jokes aside, yeah. I'll be honest, half the time I'm completely wrong about what I'll like long term, too. I think "I will hate that" and it turns out that I, uh, was very bad at predicting what will make me happy in future. Apparently that is a pretty common human thing, so ....

Omnifarious wrote: ↑

Wed Jul 17, 2019 9:06 pm

Yes, exactly. This. For example, I thought I'd really dislike the item limitation removal in assemblers, but it turns out that it isn't that important because only level 2 assemblers can accept fluids, and that's a much more natural progression anyway.

I knew I'd really dislike this change long-term because it's completely at odds with how I like to build factories. But, I can well understand choosing to wait after an initial outcry. Oftentimes people are really bad at knowing what they do and don't like.

When I was six, I insisted I loved anchovies on my pizza simply because someone told me I shouldn't have them. It turned out that I was wrong.

Well, there's quite a bit of a difference - at least for the large minority of players that use mods - when the functionality is kept for mods to be able to use it :
- assembler item limitation
- power efficiency
Compared to when it's completely removed so that mods can only replicate it using dirty hacks :
- pickaxes/melee weapons* as items
- weapon* & armor* durability
- mining hardness
- now rail bridges ?
*(not sure about these, maybe one can still cleanly mod them in ?)

BlueTemplar wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2019 10:37 am

Compared to when it's completely removed so that mods can only replicate it using dirty hacks :
- pickaxes/melee weapons* as items
- weapon* & armor* durability
- mining hardness
- now rail bridges ?
*(not sure about these, maybe one can still cleanly mod them in ?)

Except rail bridges were a dirty hack in the first place, never an officially supported features. Everyone seems to assume that devs removed them out of spite or something. I prefer to believe that there were much deeper uncommunicated implications of the particular bug that made them possible. And even if i'd like to know what these implication are, it seems unlikely that any dev would risk being the target of yet another shitstorm for trying to explain them publically.

Yeah, for rail bridges/tunnels, I just wanted to emphasize the fact that the other solution involves much dirtier hacks...

BlueTemplar wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 18, 2019 12:53 pm

Yeah, for rail bridges/tunnels, I just wanted to emphasize the fact that the other solution involves much dirtier hacks...

There is no other solution, only partial approximations :p. (Those are ugly, yes, i know, i already commented on that.)