Factorio Forums

emp_zealoth wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:48 pm

I'm gonna be THAT GUY

In this configuration it can't really be staged in any way, so the three tips make zero sense.

Rinin wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:03 pm

The rocket in "factorio" is not very streamlined. It seems planet have very low gravity, so you don't need staging. It also explains efficiency of the flying robots.

emp_zealoth wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:48 pm

As a bit of a space nerd it really triggered me a "bit" how nonsensical the rocket looks in Factorio from the point of view of actually getting to space.

emp_zealoth wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:48 pm

I'm gonna be THAT GUY

Preamble: I've just passed a 1000h mark in Factorio, but I've never launched a rocket before (yes i kno i kno) I've seen one up close and in such detail for the first time.

As a bit of a space nerd it really triggered me a "bit" how nonsensical the rocket looks in Factorio from the point of view of actually getting to space.
In this configuration it can't really be staged in any way, so the three tips make zero sense. The style is totally consistent with the rest of the game, I'm not whining about that.

I'd suggest adding a second stage (shorter [half or less of the current rocket?] and thinner [2/3 or less of one "tank or whatever it is"]) above the three distinct "tanks" (or whatever they are supposed to be), centered on a vertical axis of the craft.

I don't have KSP installed so... The proportions and numbers of boosters are obviously all wrong, it's just a first pic in Gimages I could find that shows the concept

Thank you!!!

Fedorrro wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:20 pm

It's came out now! Let's update)

gaelyte wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:12 pm

5thHorseman wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 25, 2019 2:04 pm

gaelyte wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 25, 2019 12:24 pm

But the bitters are messy and the items on my 25k belts (yes, it's a new game, only 66 hours) doesn't seem to affect the performances

Items on belts are - how should I put it - optimized to a degree heretofore unseen by any sentient being in the universe.

And why should the items on ground stay unoptimized ?

bobucles wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:14 pm

Basic rockets aren't anything special. Their recipe could replace explosives with solid fuel and it'd fit into a minimum-oil green tier. It would be a simple fuel based explosive and the overall cost would stay roughly the same. The HI-EX rocket can still keep explosive ingredients and stay in the oil tier.

bobucles wrote: ↑

Mon Feb 25, 2019 3:14 pm

- Maybe Accumulators and Laser Turrets ?

They would not fit in a minimal oil green tier. Lasers take batteries, and batteries work through most of the chemistry tech. That would place them very clearly in the oil chemistry tier, and towards the latter stages at that. Flame turrets do not require any fancy chemistry. It's a simple application of oil and fire, just like solid fuel. Solid fuel is the end goal of the modified green science, so it could fit at the end of green science, or around the beginning of oil science.

5thHorseman wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 4:09 am

Drakken wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 2:16 am

I find it odd that so few people play at a level which includes the possibility of losing?

I die from biters more than 75% of the time and love that I fail.

If a game takes less than 2 hours to play, losing is fine. If I'm in hour 150 of a factory no way am I restarting for any reason other than that I decided I was done.

CDarklock wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 5:07 am

But I am pretty sure every active poster on this forum is in that 13.8%, and may even be in more rarefied company. I mean, how many of us have at least gotten close to a rocket per minute? Certainly not me... but it sure seems like a lot of us have.

meganothing wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 1:57 pm

CDarklock wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 9:18 am

Drakken wrote: ↑

Tue Feb 26, 2019 8:41 am

Just because people don't finish the game, doesn't mean they have lost.

I never said they did. But the Steam userbase is effectively a random representative sample of all users, which is statistically valid. Whatever percentage of "Steam users playing strictly vanilla" are completing the game, the percentage of "all users with or without mods" completing the game is probably not that different.

And if over 85% of players are abandoning the game, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense for it to have tens of thousands of "overwhelmingly positive" reviews. A game that 85% of players abandon before completing is generally not a very good game. I think it's more likely that a substantial portion of those players are playing for a different objective, instead.

A game that 85% of players abandoned before completing is generally **every game on steam**

I have a few hundred games on steam and gog and haven't played the majority of them (many of them aquired in bundles or from kickstarter or bought to play on a later date that never came around). Of the rest I have played the overwhelming majority just a few minutes to hours and stopped somewhere in between. Maybe 10 to 20 games I have really finished to some end.

I may be a notorious case, but it seems common that players have such a "pile of shame" (I assume most have heard of that expression). Consequently steam statistics (when they were still accessible) showed steam users ON AVERAGE only have played a small percentage of the games they own.

I bet you will find not a single game on steam that was finished by more than one third of its owners. 13.8% is probably a percentage Wube can be proud of. I bet most games have far less than 10%. I don't think it makes sense to view all owners as players of the game.