Factorio Forums

bobingabout wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:45 pm

RocketManChronicles wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:17 pm

bobingabout wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 12:57 pm

Which leaves me with a big question actually... what is even the point in having heavy oil AND light oil? both are useful for exactly one thing each, and both become available at the same time. Why not just combine them into a single refined oil?

I thought about this a little more. If they go to one oil, let's just say Light Oil, then this leads down a scary path, one that takes me to the "Bots vs Belts" fiasco last year... No Heavy Oil? No Lubricant. Change the recipe of the Express Belts to no longer require Lubricant. And now, no Bots. The game now becomes more "Factorio" as it is only Transport Belts, just like the Devs desired a year ago.

Scary thoughts....

You'd still have lubricant, you'd just make it from Light oil instead of heavy. or vica verca, if you only had heavy oil, you'd make solid/rocket fuel from heavy instead of light. Heck, they only added light oil to rocket fuel to give it something to do, otherwise it would have been completely pointless. (I'm not forgetting the solid fuel efficiency from light oil, but, that by itself isn't reason enough for it to exist, which is why it was added to the rocket fuel recipe to give it something to do)

I see your point. Which is not bad either, as it keeps some things in the game. My point was exaggerated to kind of point out how close we are to not having either LO or HO. They are used in only a small number of things now, not far from total elimination and we have only Petroleum Gas left. If you change Rocket Fuel back to only accept Solid Fuel, there is no need for Light Oil. You eliminate Lubricant and make items not require it (Express Belts and Electric Engines), then there is no need for Heavy Oil.

What I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).

Yandersen wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pm

Antaios wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:07 pm

DanGio wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 2:37 pm

As 17.60 is out

sigh of disappointment

Jeez, this V is just so special... Look even what version of his pointless two-weeks iterations he finally decided to put into the release! I am fairly shocked how much human-hours and brainwork vent in vain. "Built-in flare-stack is out of the question" he said? OK. What he did? A built-in flare-stack that just burns LO and HO completely to 0. Why giving alternatives, right? Just cut out confusing outputs and give kids one to do a single thing with it. Is that a new Factorio approach? To fuck with this feedback and "cooperation with community" illusion bullshit, just ban me to help me waste no more time here...

Ok sorry but just what.

Yes, I have been considering various options, of course every single proposed option did get considered, and every single one of them had some issues. That does not mean wasted time, that means confirming the solution was correct, and that's absolutely valuable.

I guess for you your only "time not wasted" condition was "devs obey my change proposals", then I'm sorry but I believe the chosen solution is objectively best.

Built-in flare stack for the first process, but full complexity of the advanced process is indeed much better than providing a flare stack which would make both basic and advanced trivial.

Thank you for calling "cooperation with community" bullshit, I did what I could.

Theikkru wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:48 pm

What I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).

None of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.

V453000 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pm

Theikkru wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:48 pm

What I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).

None of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.

So why not just changing one of the mining spots in crude oil deposits to output PG, so in case pumpjack is placed over it, it outputs PG, not crude oil? Isn't it the same thing in the end as processing via 1in-1out refinery of yours? Then you can skip BOP completely and introduce normal 3out-refinery together with crackings things at the point where AOP took place before. All goals solved, all current issues with your solution disappear. Or am I wrong here?

V453000 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pm

complexity, tedium, pacing

I literally refuted all three of those even being issues caused by the previous oil system in a very lengthy post.

What about solid fuel? I'd thought that the 0.17 introduction to the chem pack was meant to highlight an underappreciated fuel source, rather than just sink excess oil products. If the latter, then these changes obviate the need, but if the former, then this seems like a step backwards.

DanGio wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:21 pm

removal of the separate tanks in the fluid wagon

With the way the oil system was set up they weren't necessary. There is never really any need to transport multiple fluids in one train. It's not like you need to transport heavy oil, light oil and petroleum somewhere. Petroleum gas is king and you just crack most of it to it. There would need to be a lot more fluids and gasses with varied uses for the old tanker to have a use

Antaios wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:04 pm

V453000 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pm

complexity, tedium, pacing

I literally refuted all three of those even being issues caused by the previous oil system in a very lengthy post.

Further, many of us have been begging that if you (the devs) still felt as though a change was needed, to not take a sledgehammer to it. There was nothing wrong with the heavy+pg solution and in fact should have been easier to implement as the only thing truly requiring a change would have been flamethrower ammo. You could still modify blue science and rocket fuel if you liked, but that wouldn't have been required.

V453000 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pm

Theikkru wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:48 pm

What I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).

None of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.

So not being able to use oil as a viable fuel source before advanced processing is not a flaw? Sticking construction bots further back into the tech tree is not a flaw?

xnmo wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:14 pm

V453000 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pm

Theikkru wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:48 pm

What I'd like to know is why all the 2-output proposals fell through. As of last notice there were 2 options that didn't seem to conflict with any of the devs' ideas/principles, petroleum+light and petroleum+heavy, and we know that the petroleum+heavy one was being tested (which I found interesting, since that one involved far more changes from the FFF than petroleum+light).

None of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.

So not being able to use oil as a viable fuel source before advanced processing is not a flaw? Sticking construction bots further back into the tech tree is not a flaw?

You can absolutely use it as a viable fuel source, you just don't have the ultimate efficiency available later, but it's completely viable. Same way you don't have productivity modules lvl3 yet either.
Construction robots further back is questionnable. It makes much more sense design-wise, but on the other end I can see why it was appealing. We'll see if the change is too drastic in this regard over time.

Yandersen wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pm

Jeez, this V is just so special... Look even what version of his pointless two-weeks iterations he finally decided to put into the release! I am fairly shocked how much human-hours and brainwork vent in vain.

Good job alienating only dev who was willing to activelly discuss and brainstorm this change here on the forums and present ideas for tweaks to the rest of the team.

posila wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:23 pm

Yandersen wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pm

Jeez, this V is just so special... Look even what version of his pointless two-weeks iterations he finally decided to put into the release! I am fairly shocked how much human-hours and brainwork vent in vain.

Good job alienating only dev who was willing to activelly discuss and brainstorm this change here on the forums and present ideas for tweaks to the rest of the team.

Obviously, Yandersen is upset, and that went too far depending on how you translate it, but the feeling is coming from a feeling that we were not taken seriously by the devs during this discussion. Can you see how your response supports that feeling?

Adamo wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:25 pm

posila wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:23 pm

Yandersen wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pm

Jeez, this V is just so special... Look even what version of his pointless two-weeks iterations he finally decided to put into the release! I am fairly shocked how much human-hours and brainwork vent in vain.

Good job alienating only dev who was willing to activelly discuss and brainstorm this change here on the forums and present ideas for tweaks to the rest of the team.

Obviously, Yandersen is upset, and that went too far depending on how you translate it, but the feeling is coming from a feeling that we were not taken seriously by the devs during this discussion. Can you see how your response supports that feeling?

Agreed. Your response comes off as "be grateful at least ONE of us was brave enough to discuss a controversial change with the community before we released it anyway".

Aflixion wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:28 pm

Adamo wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:25 pm

posila wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:23 pm

Yandersen wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pm

Jeez, this V is just so special... Look even what version of his pointless two-weeks iterations he finally decided to put into the release! I am fairly shocked how much human-hours and brainwork vent in vain.

Good job alienating only dev who was willing to activelly discuss and brainstorm this change here on the forums and present ideas for tweaks to the rest of the team.

Obviously, Yandersen is upset, and that went too far depending on how you translate it, but the feeling is coming from a feeling that we were not taken seriously by the devs during this discussion. Can you see how your response supports that feeling?

Agreed. Your response comes off as "be grateful at least ONE of us was brave enough to discuss a controversial change with the community before we released it anyway".

There is a good and informative discussion here even without us interfering. We can consider feedback without directly responding to it. If interfering just means that I get shit thrown at me, of course I won't interfere, noone likes shit on their face.

V453000 wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:52 pm

None of them really solved all the issues - complexity, tedium, pacing. Some of them were more interesting than others but always with some flaw. The biggest problem with the chosen solution is that it's likely the players will build straight pipes next to basic oil refining refineries, and get the "Can't mix fluids" error. We have some ideas how to fix this already, but nothing confirmed yet.

Ok can you please tell me what exactly you do not like in this solution:

• BOP produces HO and PG
• Sulfur is produced from HO and LO
• Rocket fuel is produced from LO only
• Plastic is produced from PG
• AOP gets gas liquification (PG -> LO)
• Flamethrower ammo requires HO
• Blue science gets Sulfur and Plastic (or still red chips)

I am pretty sure there is no problem with complexity, no tedium and no issues with pace.
Player gets well visually aware of output imbalance due to direct conversion of HO->Sulfur and PG->Plastic. Balance can still be achieved by either storing or producing solid fuel.
Balancing 2 liquids is much easier than 3, there is no mess with pipes as there are only 2 output liquids, which obviously does not break player's mind. If a player can't solve such simple task than obviously Factorio is not for him.

AOP will still be a requirement for rocket fuel and will help player reach perfect balance in either way (Sulfur, or Plastic, or Rocket Fuel).

I am pretty sure that you should not simplify it any further than that. However this recipe does teach the player at least something new as FFF-304 does not teach anything new or good, it does only stimulate false solutions such as placing refineries adjacent to each other or pipes adjacent to refineries.

Anyways no solution really addresses the core issue - GUI indication of output blocking. So you are fighting with windmills here V.

I do think we also have to take in account that like, we, the people posting on these boards are generally the people who invest / have invested more time in the game. Like, we're not a representative slice of the people who play factorio. I'd say, try it out a bit, give feedback, wait until the devs can get their feedback from more sources as well, etc... It's an experimental changes patch still. Like, nothing dramatic has changed yet and more changes are still going to happen. They have said themselves that more tutorials fall under .18 if I recall correctly. There's been big sweeping changes before all we all lived through them. At the end, to launch a rocket you still need to balance multiple oil outputs. This is what experimental patches are for, to explore concepts and see how they actually work in gameplay.

Serenity wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:08 pm

DanGio wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:21 pm

removal of the separate tanks in the fluid wagon

With the way the oil system was set up they weren't necessary. There is never really any need to transport multiple fluids in one train. It's not like you need to transport heavy oil, light oil and petroleum somewhere. Petroleum gas is king and you just crack most of it to it. There would need to be a lot more fluids and gasses with varied uses for the old tanker to have a use

They were really appreciated in mods :
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ii4Z59isxpY

Bilka wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:31 pm

noone likes shit on their face.

This statement appears categorically inconsistent with observed behaviour.

Aflixion wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:28 pm

Adamo wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:25 pm

posila wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 5:23 pm

Yandersen wrote: ↑

Tue Jul 30, 2019 4:27 pm

Jeez, this V is just so special... Look even what version of his pointless two-weeks iterations he finally decided to put into the release! I am fairly shocked how much human-hours and brainwork vent in vain.

Good job alienating only dev who was willing to activelly discuss and brainstorm this change here on the forums and present ideas for tweaks to the rest of the team.

Obviously, Yandersen is upset, and that went too far depending on how you translate it, but the feeling is coming from a feeling that we were not taken seriously by the devs during this discussion. Can you see how your response supports that feeling?

Agreed. Your response comes off as "be grateful at least ONE of us was brave enough to discuss a controversial change with the community before we released it anyway".

Ok, what should I have said instead, is that the final decision which variant to put to today's release was not entirely on Vaclav. So attacking him personally misses the mark.