Item Weight

[Nova]

@Cybervantyz: It's nice that you want to shove your opinion about the game down everyone's throat. Well, no, that's not nice, that's horrible.
There's already the modding interface, and all this can already be implemented. (And if freely rotationable and placeable images are not possible now, this will be added before version 1.0.)
And no, I don't like your proposal at all. It's sounds stupid and overly complex. 5 sizes and weights? No, thank you.

[Cybervantyz]

@Nova
Who the heck are you to make conclusions? Who even asked you?
If you like an idea - support it. If you have some addition notes - say them. If you do not like - just pass by to the next topic, alright?

[Nova]

Who the heck are you to make conclusions about how the game is played and that "complexity is the way" and people who dislike that are whiners? The developers have implemented the whole fighting parts with the aliens. That's what they wanted, and the whole game is about that - your endgame goal is to build the rocket defense to fight off... well, some kind of threat from the aliens. Whatever. Yes, you build factories and automate stuff, but that's only a part of the game.

That's a terrible advice. We are here to discuss ideas, the positive and the negative aspects. Only mentioning the pros is very bad, it destroys any kind of use of the whole "Ideas and Suggestions" subforum.

Who asked me? The basic rules of a forum. People write stuff and everyone is free to respond and discuss. If you want to write something without people responding to you, write it in Notepad (or equivalent) and save it to your hard drive.

[Garm]

My opinion: As long, as this adds only complexity instead of some kind of new gameplay, I think it is not a clever idea.

But as I see it currently, it adds only complexity and problems. Things which are currently easy and straight through must be thought around the edge to solve them. For example the simple problem to add a train at an outpost is then extremely complex.

I beg to differ on two fronts:

First of all this is not about difficulty and complexity it's about scalabilty of said difficulty with player progression and resulting rebalance coming out of it allowing developers to add very powerful things without making everything else obsolete.

Here is example of the current system - base expansion and biter elimination: currently game is more or less balanced in the vicinity of the original spawn. as player progresses further outward biter nests become bigger and badder making gameplay more challenging? nope - grindier. Current biter elimination usually uses two approaches: research some defence (tank, powersuit) and throw some resources at the enemy (ammo, capsules). Adding more expensive research or more expensive ammo would not solve the situation but make the entire gameplay way too easy. Resource acquisition and utilization is usually a problem in first few games, after that making a ton of something becomes only a matter of available space and some initial time investment.

This is what makes current system incomplete: it only works well for medium to none biter presence. And that is why I am proposing this design - to fill in the empty space. These items could be absolutely optional for winning the game, but if you want to go big - if you want to kill an entire peninsula worth of biters and not fall asleep in the meantime - you are welcome for some challenge.

Secondly - Complexity can be good. what you are talking about is more akin to punishing complexity - stuff that adds nothing to the game but unnecessary tedium. Another type could be a challenging complexity - stuff that poses you a challenge, which will reward you as you overcome it.

simply turning current tanks into heavy items would be punishing (they are not particularly useful endgame already and now they are a hassle to create), however if you have a new tank that requires this new infrastructure, but at the same time reflects additional challenge with sufficient reward (seriously beefed up version with serious firepower) now you aren't forcing the players to slave at new infrastructure - you are giving them an option - whether waste less time on building a base but more time killing biters, or spend more time building making biter elimination a breeze.

[Cybervantyz]

Oh yeah, I approve. This game definitely needs more flexibility, because as for now Factorio can offer only one way to do something. One most efficient way, I mean. Seriously. Play this game for about 100 hours and you will see that I am right.
Gameplay is lacking decisions, and choosing of SCALE of things to work with is definitely a possible way to go.
Just imagine - one prefers big guns and vehicles, big assemblers and huge whatever, and other one prefers to go smaller, but more precise and compact.

[Overread]

I can see where this idea leads to and I like it.

The idea that the player can build most things is good, but yes things like trains and tanks and even some of the larger factory buildings I think should be set so that they have to come from a production building.

Of course a building to build a train has to be bigger than the train it builds; thus we reach a confusing point where we ask the player to build something bigger to build something smaller because the smaller thing is too big for the player to build. A maddening thought.

I wonder if its possible to have a structure that auto-builds? Something that has one or two entry points for belts to feed resources into it, which then powers and provides building material for a series of automated bots/construction arms which then build the structure over a wider area. Allowing the player to build up a larger structure to produce things like trains or tanks.

I'd say from a practical gameplay side of things that tanks and vehicles could certainly be buildable from a factory structure and then too big to put into inventory. However things like trains might be more practical to allow the player to inventory them and then place them onto track. Breaks immersion but I think that trying to build a train "hub" that has trains built inside and are then moved out could prove difficult/convoluted to implement - at least with the current way t rains are controlled (though I'd not be opposed to such an idea).

[Garm]

I wonder if its possible to have a structure that auto-builds? Something that has one or two entry points for belts to feed resources into it, which then powers and provides building material for a series of automated bots/construction arms which then build the structure over a wider area. Allowing the player to build up a larger structure to produce things like trains or tanks.

I was musing about this idea but decided not to voice it out loud, because my approach felt too grindy for me:

Concept is "Modularity is key"

instead of building entire building - build parts of it (perhaps in assembler only)

Then either place each thing by hand (for sake of needed simplicity)

OR

"build" a worksite area designation that when placed looks nothing like finished building, but accepts stuff from inserters, robots, (or if heavy enough) and heavy-duty gantry inserters. When it has all necessary ingredients it builds itself a la Command&Conquer buildings.

Seconds options sounds and looks cooler, but would require players to literally build belts to build building itself, which might be a bit too tedious experience.

[Overread]

I don't think so - I think building belts that have a target like a specific building would add some interesting ideas into the game. If the game had several buildings of this kind it would introduce a neat building mechanic for players wanting to build compact bases as they'd have to really think about how to lay out their transport belts (or they can of course use hoverbots).

[Garm]

I don't think so - I think building belts that have a target like a specific building would add some interesting ideas into the game. If the game had several buildings of this kind it would introduce a neat building mechanic for players wanting to build compact bases as they'd have to really think about how to lay out their transport belts (or they can of course use hoverbots).

I meant this design might need one-time use belts, for delivery of building materials, which would need to be demolished or rerouted as soon as building becomes functional. Thus being tedious.

[Adil]

Another type of production lines would be quite neat. Like currently we have assembly lines for stuff and the oil-industry which are significantly different in their patterns.
Yes, it's application to the current gameplay (car,tank,train-making) will result in decreasing player on-the-spot capabilities. But that is hardly uncommon during the development.
I'd rather see this as a construction line rather than a monolith building.

However things like trains might be more practical to allow the player to inventory them and then place them onto track. Breaks immersion but I think that trying to build a train "hub" that has trains built inside and are then moved out could prove difficult/convoluted to implement - at least with the current way t rains are controlled (though I'd not be opposed to such an idea).

Were cargo blimps and cargo mechs suggested in this thread already?

[Overread]

I think we have to be careful with things like cargo mechs because otherwise we are having all this attention on building a train which is them moved by something else that is huge as well - so somethings got to build the first huge thing to move the other huge thing.

[Garm]

Were cargo blimps and cargo mechs suggested in this thread already?

I want to be careful around these.

Frankly if they are just results of proposed infrastructure - they can be viable albeit that is more of a developer territory. I would prefer to suggest the general concept and possibilities, with the details left to developers.


However if these are used to actually move heavy items than I am against it: Reason is simple this concept was designed as something player has no direct control over and the only way these things can be moved or modified is through factory that the player builds. Having machinery that allows players to bypass it would render this entire idea meaningless.

Its like having "upgrade" to powerarmour that allows player to craft liquids

[krux02]

Let's be honest about the inventory. It's good to have a big inventory, that can carry a lot of stuff. But when the game should motivate the player to build a logistic network, then it good at a certain point the player is not able anymore to do things manually. I think a good start here could be to have cars, trains and tanks in their build form only. I don't think the player should be able to carry vehicles in his pocket anymore. Of course this change would require a way to get those bigger items/vehicles out of the factory. I do think here of something like the container cranes in harbors.



When those big items then can be transported via trains, the train network that is currently completely optional, becomes a requirement at some point. I think this change could be a great improvement to the military part of the game, if it's used correctly. I like to imagine, that I can improve my automation, to ship more and heavier weaponry to the front. So that my front mainly increases through better automation and higher throughput, not just the next powerup of the shotgun, and a lot of shooting. Imagine you can build the production pipeline to fuel this type of a gun, where each bullet is to heavy to be lifted manually:



[trivia: this weapon has been developed to outrange the enemy artillery in city bombardment, but has been an easy target for bombers]

[The Phoenixian]

This is an excellent idea, but you're not the first to have it.

Check out the Large Bridge Cranes thread for some earlier talk on the subject.

[t33]

Ever heard of the magic pocket?

[Garm]

I've proposed similar idea recently (https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... php?t=7475)

As well as few years ago.

[krux02]

it's funny that we both use the exact same example. I also think it's funny that we agree in everything without ever having to talk about anything. Then how do we get the developers attention?

[hitzu]

Game is built under the rule of minor punishment for creativity and experimentation. You propose something that go directly against that rule: once you've built the immovable object, you cannot just rebuild it in another place. There would be less room for minor mistakes, you would have to plan so many steps ahead that probably you won't experiment at all and will delay that moment as far as you can for just to not to be mistaken. Potentially that would be bad for gameplay.

For example KSP has this problem: once you launch a rocket into the space you cannot change it configuration. So if you forgot about some little detail designing the rocket (for example you forgot to install antennas, or lights, or the amount of fuel is too low) it could screw up the whole mission and there's nothing you can do about it but reload or launch new mission.

[krux02]

Game is built under the rule of minor punishment for creativity and experimentation. You propose something that go directly against that rule: once you've built the immovable object, you cannot just rebuild it in another place.

I don't really see where the immovable object is. In cas you did not see it, the cannon is on rails, and all other proposed "big" objects are mobile ones like trains, cars and tanks.

But since you are mentioning it. I think making certain structures immovable/permanent could be an improvement to the game. Yes you are right, all factory components should always be movable, and that's also how real assemply halls are designed. Factories have a lot of machines that can (relatively) simply be repositioned within the factory. Even factories itself often have modular components. But this is not true for military Structures. For example most of the bunkers from the second world war at the atlantic coast are still where they were. It was simply to expensive to remove them. The reason here is that these structures are build to be solid and not movable at all.

There would be less room for minor mistakes, you would have to plan so many steps ahead that probably you won't experiment at all and will delay that moment as far as you can for just to not to be mistaken. Potentially that would be bad for gameplay.

Yes, but less room for mistakes is not necessarily less fun. It just creates some more tension when you make these decisions, and some bad feelings, when you see it was wrong. On the other hand the joy is much greater when it eventually works. Remember games are about creating emotions, not preventing them.

For example KSP has this problem: once you launch a rocket into the space you cannot change it configuration. So if you forgot about some little detail designing the rocket (for example you forgot to install antennas, or lights, or the amount of fuel is too low) it could screw up the whole mission and there's nothing you can do about it but reload or launch new mission.

Yes you are right, when everything in the game has to be planned from the beginning, it can be too frustratingt But as long as the game has both, hard decisions and undoable decisions, I don't see a conflict here.

[silenced]

Sometimes, sooner or later ... a game collides heavily with realism and then it's good to remind yourself that it's only a game and most people play games to have some fun (or !!FUN!! in some cases). To keep people playing a game you need to keep the fun inside.