Friday Facts #306 - Experimental Demo

[Lorash]

-

[conn11]

So I tried the Experimental Demo.... by downloading the demo...

This was my results after running away from the biters...



I think the Bugs won!

they have got me to.

Occured multiple times on the demo version, runs smoothly on my main game though.

[Hamster]

Demo crashed - Posted as bug as well.


6481.594 Info AppManager.cpp:287: Saving to _autosave1 (blocking).
6481.841 Info AppManagerStates.cpp:1754: Saving finished
6539.278 Error MainLoop.cpp:1223: Exception at tick 5259441: The scenario level caused a non-recoverable error.
Please report this error to the scenario author.

Error while running event level::on_tick (ID 0)
Unknown entity name: rocket-silo
stack traceback:
__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:48: in function 'breed_spawner'
__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:203: in function 'plan_colony'
__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:441: in function 'register'
...__/lualib/npe/cutscenes/base_destroyed_east_revealed.lua:215: in function 'init'
__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:231: in function 'jump_to_node'
__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:196: in function 'update'
__base__/lualib/npe/storytable.lua:138: in function '?'
__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:7: in function <__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:4>
stack traceback:
[C]: in function 'find_non_colliding_position_in_box'
__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:48: in function 'breed_spawner'
__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:203: in function 'plan_colony'
__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:441: in function 'register'
...__/lualib/npe/cutscenes/base_destroyed_east_revealed.lua:215: in function 'init'
__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:231: in function 'jump_to_node'
__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:196: in function 'update'
__base__/lualib/npe/storytable.lua:138: in function '?'
__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:7: in function <__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:4
6555.598 Quitting: user-quit.
6555.652 DSound: Stopping voice

[zenos14]

And of course this is brought up here, but first, the subject of the thread.

I liked the changes, I will admit I found the last bits of the old one a bit too overwhelming, and this one's a bit more my speed, far less chance of me thinking I've been doing well only to fine myself in an unwinnable situation due to my own over-construction and/or slowness

You're still forced to use advanced oil processing, so nothing meaningful was removed from the game, just moved later. Plenty of people hit a brick wall around blue science and give up, not because it's too difficult to do, but because it's no longer fun.

I'd actually say something meaningful was removed, basic oil processing, as Advanced oil processing has now become needed, previously it was optional (though not using it was suboptimal), but like electric furnaces or beacons, a player could ignore it if they wanted to for some reason, there's also the fact that "Moved later" can also mean moved to a point past where it'd be fun to get, or past a point where the player no longer has any interest in the game if it means having to deal with that tedium. And I for one am firmly in the camp that the delay in bots (and excess oil products to turn into fuel) happens too late now
As for your second point, if it's because they no longer have fun around blue science, will the change in oil keep the fun? I haven't seen any evidence it'll do so

In short, the changes make oil less annoying to set up in the basic form. I hate hearing that this is only for newcomers, I think it’s just generally better, not having to worry about as many things.
In case of no changes, the basic oil processing was annoying yet completely unsustainable, deadlocking all the time. This lead to just spamming tanks which is a really weak solution, and forced the player to rush advanced oil processing, thus rushing blue science. However with all the things in green the player is generally in a good spot.

Thinking on this post, has made me realize two main things about my dislike of the oil changes, for the first one, it may just be that part of my issue with all this is that I have trouble wrapping my head around old BOP being unsustainable, my first few playthroughs I got oil with the intent of using solid fuel to fuel my boilers/smelters so hearing people mention back up just seems like that's a failure to communicate the usage of solid fuel than anything else. Maybe my experience learning factorio is just atypical, but this feels like such a minor enough problem that a short "You can make oil products now! And use any excess of the THREE outputs as fuel for boilers/furnaces" popup like we get when we first get trains would fix everything to me.
For the second thing, well I also feel that in the rush to simply things you guys made BOP too simple, you've pushed a couple useful things farther back than they should (bots and extra oil products to make solid fuel into) and I (though you guys have made it clear you think otherwise, so time will have to tell on this one) feel it doesn't teach new players anything other than possibly bad habits, while for veteran players (or at least for me) it just prods them to rush AOP for the stuff that used to be red/green techs and never take a second look at BOP once it's there, maybe that's the intent but it just feels off There's also my problem with the usage of sulfur for blue science and the look of the refineries with BOP but that's a whole 'nother tangent

You are right though, the arguments have all been discussed and at this point the best thing to do is probably wait and see how it actually affect things, but people are angry and to be honest, having played with it a bit the past few days has only increased my feeling this is a mistake, but I admit that could just be due to my own preferences talking for now

Also, I honestly cannot spend another full weekend fully reading the forums and spending several hours writing replies.

Fair, hope you have a good one and sorry for any stress we may have caused

[cpy]

Can you play demo scenario in full game?

[lacika2000]

But you should understand that you have left a vast majority of your most loyal community

That's a bold claim. I for one, welcome the oil changes, and I'm sure I'm not alone, content people just tend to not voice their opinions. I didn't until now for instance. You're still forced to use advanced oil processing, so nothing meaningful was removed from the game, just moved later. Plenty of people hit a brick wall around blue science and give up, not because it's too difficult to do, but because it's no longer fun.

This is the reason many of us have argued that moving con bots behind the blue science wall is counter productive. The whole blue science part asks for many things from the player, including a noticeable capacity expansion of the existing production. If we had con bots available around this time, this would be a lower barrier step for all players, new or veterans playing a non-moded game.

But to stay on topic, look at the Demo tech tree: you have robot cargo expansion as a red science item!!! In the actual game (as of 0.17.60) this is a blue science item. Imagine that you have bought the game based on the impression that you will be able to harness the benefit of those flying machines, just to realize in your first play through that these are far-far away on the actual tech tree and you will need to do EVERYTHING by hand until you reach that point, including blue science... I can imagine that players are “somewhat” discouraged by this. I am afraid no BOP tweak will fix this really...

[DanGio]

Can you play demo scenario in full game?

Play > Start campaign > Introduction > Enjoy

[abregado]

But to stay on topic, look at the Demo tech tree: you have robot cargo expansion as a red science item!!! In the actual game (as of 0.17.60) this is a blue science item.

Please play the new Demo before you comment on anything in the tech tree. The icon you speak of is a placeholder for something else (it is still experimental).

[abregado]

Demo crashed - Posted as bug as well.

they have got me to.

So I tried the Experimental Demo.... by downloading the demo...

The demo crashed. Here's a report

I'm just whipping up a fix for this. My bus to Frankfurt (and then on to Australia for holidays) leaves in 40 minutes so I think i can squeeze in a bug fix for you all.

[Koub]

Moderator-me here and hereafter.

I kindly remind to all those who want to discuss about the oil changes that there has already been plenty of discussion in the FFF 304&305 topics for the oil processing changes, that both topics are still open, and there is even a lengthy albeit smaller discussion on the 0.17.60 thread.

If you wish to [Moderated by myself] keep discussing about the oil changes, please don't pollute this thread.

Following this post, I'll simply remove any mention to the oil changes as off topic.

[Hamster]

I'm just whipping up a fix for this. My bus to Frankfurt (and then on to Australia for holidays) leaves in 40 minutes so I think i can squeeze in a bug fix for you all.

Enjoy your holiday! I hope you can sleep on the bus. Otherwise it will be a loooong night..

[lacika2000]

I'm just whipping up a fix for this. My bus to Frankfurt (and then on to Australia for holidays) leaves in 40 minutes so I think i can squeeze in a bug fix for you all.

Wow, that’s dedication!!!

[BattleFluffy]

Moderator-me here and hereafter.
<snip>

Koub, by saying this, you are expressing an opinion on the oil topic. I support the oil changes - evidently we both do - but this statement must make people who don't support it feel very angry. :\
As a moderator it might be better to stick to neutral language on such a sensitive topic.

[abregado]

Ok, bug fix for the demo crash will be in the next release. Keep trying and sending over those bug reports!!!

Before I get started, I want to caveat this with the fact that this topic (the new introduction campaign) does deserve discussion, but maybe there were more urgent topics to cover this week?

This week there is no topic more urgent than getting feedback on the demo, which is why I wrote about it in the FFF. I would super appreciate any oil change discussion going to the proper channels. Thank you to everyone who respects this wish.

[BlueTemplar]

Having read comments before playing the tutorial I went into it like I would on deathworld. I survived rather easily.
Unless pollution scales ridiculously I'm not sure beginners would be able to win the old version.

It does !
(Read the previous linked FFF about it.)

AFAIK, it was much easier for completely new players... unless maybe if they made the mistake of losing a turret with 200 ammo in it, or filling a chest with some useless item ?
viewtopic.php?p=402922#p402922
(Dang, the videos don't seem to be available anymore... )

[Faark]

Think i got a different one than most reported crashes (happened after arming turrets with a overly expanded and defended base... based on last versions trauma ):

Code: Select all

The scenario level caused a non-recoverable error.
Please report this error to the scenario author.

Error while running event level::on_tick (ID 0)
LuaUnitGroup API call when LuaUnitGroup was invalid.
stack traceback:
	__base__/lualib/npe/cutscenes/west_spawner_close.lua:85: in function 'init'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:231: in function 'jump_to_node'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:196: in function 'update'
	__base__/lualib/npe/storytable.lua:138: in function '?'
	__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:7: in function <__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:4>
stack traceback:
	[C]: in function '__index'
	__base__/lualib/npe/cutscenes/west_spawner_close.lua:85: in function 'init'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:231: in function 'jump_to_node'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:196: in function 'update'
	__base__/lualib/npe/storytable.lua:138: in function '?'
	__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:7: in function <__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:4>

Other campaign feedback so far:
- A bunch of researches could use a more fitting images (e.g. basic mining has an electric drill?)
- Compilatron was standing on top of an empty inserter... the one loading into a quest-boxe. Refueling that was a pain (thankfully he only covered most of it).
- The evacuation certainly feels more dangerous, since I don't remember being spit at in earlier versions. But not sure if urgent enough. Have you considered some form of perceivable timer?

[Koub]

Koub, by saying this, you are expressing an opinion on the oil topic. I support the oil changes - evidently we both do - but this statement must make people who don't support it feel very angry. :\
As a moderator it might be better to stick to neutral language on such a sensitive topic.

I don't fully agree with the first part of this quote, but all in all, I do agree that I should be more neutral when moderating, therefore I moderated myself .

[abregado]

Think i got a different one than most reported crashes (happened after arming turrets with a overly expanded and defended base... based on last versions trauma ):

Code: Select all

The scenario level caused a non-recoverable error.
Please report this error to the scenario author.

Error while running event level::on_tick (ID 0)
LuaUnitGroup API call when LuaUnitGroup was invalid.
stack traceback:
	__base__/lualib/npe/cutscenes/west_spawner_close.lua:85: in function 'init'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:231: in function 'jump_to_node'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:196: in function 'update'
	__base__/lualib/npe/storytable.lua:138: in function '?'
	__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:7: in function <__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:4>
stack traceback:
	[C]: in function '__index'
	__base__/lualib/npe/cutscenes/west_spawner_close.lua:85: in function 'init'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:231: in function 'jump_to_node'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:196: in function 'update'
	__base__/lualib/npe/storytable.lua:138: in function '?'
	__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:7: in function <__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:4>

Other campaign feedback so far:
- A bunch of researches could use a more fitting images (e.g. basic mining has an electric drill?)
- Compilatron was standing on top of an empty inserter... the one loading into a quest-boxe. Refueling that was a pain (thankfully he only covered most of it).
- The evacuation certainly feels more dangerous, since I don't remember being spit at in earlier versions. But not sure if urgent enough. Have you considered some form of perceivable timer?

Ahh I think you finished the quest to put turrets near iron, then moved the turrets further out afterwards (or had turrets in both places). I will look into it but it isn't one that everyone will suffer from. Try reloading and removing your outer most turrets in the meantime.

Perceivable timers were considered but break immersion quite drastically. They are also quite hard. I prefer soft barriers. Currently you can continue forever but will have worms in your base (or for fun try pickaxing some biters). The worm screams seems to work to drive off players

Thanks for playing

[Vinnie_NL]

I also got the same error as others just after evacuating the first base and the biters destroying the last bits:

Code: Select all

706.975 Error MainLoop.cpp:1223: Exception at tick 5191099: The scenario level caused a non-recoverable error.
Please report this error to the scenario author.

Error while running event level::on_tick (ID 0)
Unknown entity name: rocket-silo
stack traceback:
	__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:48: in function 'breed_spawner'
	__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:203: in function 'plan_colony'
	__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:441: in function 'register'
	...__/lualib/npe/cutscenes/base_destroyed_east_revealed.lua:215: in function 'init'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:231: in function 'jump_to_node'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:196: in function 'update'
	__base__/lualib/npe/storytable.lua:138: in function '?'
	__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:7: in function <__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:4>
stack traceback:
	[C]: in function 'find_non_colliding_position_in_box'
	__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:48: in function 'breed_spawner'
	__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:203: in function 'plan_colony'
	__base__/lualib/colony_controller.lua:441: in function 'register'
	...__/lualib/npe/cutscenes/base_destroyed_east_revealed.lua:215: in function 'init'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:231: in function 'jump_to_node'
	__core__/lualib/story_2.lua:196: in function 'update'
	__base__/lualib/npe/storytable.lua:138: in function '?'
	__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:7: in function <__base__/lualib/event_handler.lua:4
3740.673 Loading map D:\Downloads\HTTP\Factorio_0.17.61\saves\1.zip: 1641260 bytes.
3740.822 Loading level.dat: 3803756 bytes.
3740.824 Info Scenario.cpp:187: Map version 0.17.61-4
3740.863 Loading script.dat: 57571 bytes.
3740.878 Checksum for script D:/Downloads/HTTP/Factorio_0.17.61/temp/currently-playing/control.lua: 1742074333
3770.990 Info AppManagerStates.cpp:1754: Saving finished
3793.344 Info AppManagerStates.cpp:1754: Saving finished
3811.935 Info AppManagerStates.cpp:1754: Saving finished
3857.614 Error MainLoop.cpp:1223: Exception at tick 5190682: The scenario level caused a non-recoverable error.
Please report this error to the scenario author.

I enjoyed playing the demo so far, but I'm mostly curious about the last part. I did accomplish the demo scenario on the first try in the previous version but it was indeed quite intense with the constant stream of attacks. Finally winning felt rewarding but I agree that a slower paced gameplay is a better indication of the full game for new players. The hectic gameplay like the previous tutorial would be more fitting as a short custom scenario in the full game. I'm looking forward to the fixed demo tomorrow

[seludovici]

Two things I noticed about the final play area map you showed at the end:

1. There are two iron patches far away which you could tap in the later freeplay, but no similarly situated copper patches
2. Why is there a uranium patch?