Version 0.16.7

[TheRaph]

75k sulfuric acid or lubricant is just too much! Apart from oil / water / steam there is no point in having SO MUCH liquid stored in a train buffer!

I'm not saying that I welcome this change, but there are better alternatives to that:
Read the train content into a decider combinator and switch off the pump.
OR
Use the "item count" condition in the train schedule GUI

But not as easy ...

Also don't like the decision of devs to remove that nice feature (I typically disagree to everything what restrict flexibility) , but I've had not using it so much so I'm not depending on it.

I prefer the two-wagons-solution. They may make two wagons: one with 3 chambers and one big one.

[Avezo]

This is a great example, of making the mistake of allowing a feature without making sure we really wanted that in the first place. If it never existed people would have zero problems with that.

ask yourself, what is more important? what you the developer wants, or what the player wants?

I'm a player and I want simple wagons. What now.

[Engimage]

I will tell my personal opinion about tanker wagons.

1. They do transport too much liquid. Either stationary tanks should be made 2x2 (the most obvious thing as wagons have 3 connection points every 2 tiles) or wagon should contain exactly 25k same as stationary tank.
2. While tanker wagon has its unique identity by having 3 subtanks I did dislike this idea as it made pump connection a real problem (different alignments etc). IMO one pump can unload wagon directly to tank fast enough with absolutely no need to have 3 concurrent connections. Here the simpler the better. If pump would just extend tube a bit towards wagon to show it is connected I would be 100% happy. Making complex animation for different angles makes me see unnecessary complexion. Also this weird connection points confuse people when they try to place adjacent pumps.
3. Remembering how did we use barrel transporting we did NEVER use mixed liquids in wagons (even with omnibarrel mod). We did reserve slots to empty/full barrels but this limited wagon throughtput strong enough to have a luxury of sharing a wagon.

So IMO simplifying tank wagon would be nice. Wagon having 2 connections would be even more appropriate (to line up with tank size). Also decreasing tank wagon size would be good I think (also aligning it with barrels, maybe decreasing barrel stack size to 5).

So while this might be annoying to some people I do not see this feature removal really game breaking in any way. People will still be able to do same stuff but will use more wagons for it.

However I do hope that this removal has a valid reason for it like clearing code or making object model more streamlined or whatever. Not just "too tired to fix" argument.

[TheRaph]

This is a great example, of making the mistake of allowing a feature without making sure we really wanted that in the first place. If it never existed people would have zero problems with that.

ask yourself, what is more important? what you the developer wants, or what the player wants?

I'm a player and I want simple wagons. What now.

They may implement two types of wagon - 3-chamber and one-chamber. So multiple demands could be respected. (This also solves the glitch, because no one needs to switch between connected or unconnected).

[TheRaph]

I will tell my personal opinion about tanker wagons.

1. They do transport too much liquid. Either stationary tanks should be made 2x2 (the most obvious thing as wagons have 3 connection points every 2 tiles) or wagon should contain exactly 25k same as stationary tank.
2. While tanker wagon has its unique identity by having 3 subtanks I did dislike this idea as it made pump connection a real problem (different alignments etc). IMO one pump can unload wagon directly to tank fast enough with absolutely no need to have 3 concurrent connections. Here the simpler the better. If pump would just extend tube a bit towards wagon to show it is connected I would be 100% happy. Making complex animation for different angles makes me see unnecessary complexion. Also this weird connection points confuse people when they try to place adjacent pumps.
3. Remembering how did we use barrel transporting we did NEVER use mixed liquids in wagons (even with omnibarrel mod). We did reserve slots to empty/full barrels but this limited wagon throughtput strong enough to have a luxury of sharing a wagon.

So IMO simplifying tank wagon would be nice. Wagon having 2 connections would be even more appropriate (to line up with tank size). Also decreasing tank wagon size would be good I think (also aligning it with barrels, maybe decreasing barrel stack size to 5).

So while this might be annoying to some people I do not see this feature removal really game breaking in any way. People will still be able to do same stuff but will use more wagons for it.

However I do hope that this removal has a valid reason for it like clearing code or making object model more streamlined or whatever. Not just "too tired to fix" argument.

Yay ... Making everything same size and perfect fit. No need to think about adaptions. (In reality the tanks on harbor site has exactly the same size than the train tanks because it's easier so.) Also please make every recipe so, that it can be evenly be supplied by needed ingredients. And in next step, please make the game, that it play itself and I only need to click what type of factory it should set up.

*ironic off*

[fishycat]

Thanks guys for all the updates.

The discussion about the fluid-tank remembers me somehow at Bob Ross Show. You watched him all along creating a beautiful picture and all of a sudden, out of nowhere he painted something strange in the middle of a, for me already finished picture, and my pulse went up. Oh no Bob, what did you do!?

But as he continues, all makes totally sense and the picture is even more beautiful.

[TheRaph]

Thanks guys for all the updates.

Agree ...

In flame of discussion sometime we forgot to say thank you for 7 fast updates in last few days.

So dear devs - I don't agree with every of your decisions (fluid wagon and new design of concrete) but I think you did a very god job over all.

[rldml]

To finish, it could be modded, and mods are good for minor functionnality like this.

Just no.

For the beginning: i'm an enthusiastic vanilla player - i don't like mods in general, even when i tried to code one by myself. My main reason to avoid mods is the simple fact, that the devs try to create a well balanced game and mods can disturb this balance if the modder has not the same experience in coding like the devs or has a different idea for the game.

Arguments that suggest usage of mods in discussions like this are immediately invalid, for at least following reasons:
-Mods disable achievements

Not exactly. They just disable the steam archievements. The ingame achievements work properly with mods. This game is not about getting this achievements in the first place, they are a little bonus and can be a challenge for you to play a game another way as you are used to play it.

-Any environment featuring mods is mostly detached from official game meta, as most people (including veterans) will always play vanilla. Plus blueprint sharing is complicated in this case.

And it's not really a problem. If some combinations have enough publicitiy and fans, it forms a subcommunity. A good example for this are Angel's and Bob's mods.

There is nothing wrong with that.

-Mods often become incompatible when a big update rolls out, delaying the time you can try it out while you wait for your mods to update. Not all mods are reliably maintained and are often abandoned.

Yeah, but is that really your problem? Mod-Users know about this and can rethink their decisions to use specific mods or stay at older versions of factorio to keep use them. The only one possible reason to go against mods would be if the devs would decide not to implement a feature because of the existence of a mod. But my personal experience shows the opposite: The devs implement features they were in mods in the first place!

You can like them, you can hate them, using mods make your opinion not 'not valid'.

Greetings, Ronny

[yohannc]

Again, how do you know how many people used it? Aside from that, I disagree - since it had no negative impact on the game, it should be kept even if used by minority. There are things which are good at filling a niche.

I don't really want factorio look like that :


Because, why not add the possibility for splitter to choose how much % it spread at the left and how much at the right ? No negative impact if 50/50 by default, isn't it ?

They can add tons of usefull options, but the game will look like a boring simulator and it's sure it's take time to maintain.

Edit : I forgot to thank the staff too, i'm not fan of all decisions (concrete for example), but the work you have done up to here, is just awesome.

[tmx]

"Simple" game



It just works

[TheRaph]

I don't really want factorio look like that :

Most mega factorio-factories I've seen on youtube looks very similar to this

@tmx - that is a different type of game. People who like easy games should play easy games.

Games like c&c are for base building and defend. Skyline Cities are more for people who like to manage infrastructure in general. If you like to mange transport its better to have a game like TTC.
And there are also tower defense which had some parts in common with Factorio.

But the reason why I play Factorio is, it takes it all and adds the possibility to do what you want. No limits of space, no limits of time. There is no one (in game) who tells you what is the best design. You have to riddle it out on your own. That's why I think Factorio is amazing.

So I'm strictly FOR every decision made by devs who will expand the flexibility and possibility of actions the Player can do.
And I#m strictly against everything what restricts the player (compared with possibility available before).

So I really have no Problem with that cockpit-style (if it only appears if you click an assembler) - because I know there are people who can manage this and I'm willing to compete with them

[supernet2]

To all people complaining the end of 3-liquid wagons is the end of Factorio, the real question is : would you have missed that feature that much if it had never existed, and the fluid wagon had from start been as it is now ? You mostly miss it because you got used to it.
The goal the devs aim to is not to keep every existing player in his/her comfort zone, but to make a 1.0 version that will be the best possible for a new player. Other "breaking" changes have been made in the past years, and all the people who haven't lived them wouldn't understand today why the drama then, when they happened.
If you want fome feature back for your own comfort or playstyle, then you're asking things for the wrong reasons. Ask them for the new player, to make HIS/HER gaming experience the best possible.
And always remember, this is alpha, so nothing is engraved into stone.

In my experience i had wished for easier way's to transport resources, and use less resources to get to that goal. I personally enjoy micro builds, so having something that makes it easier to keep my micro mini bases going and moving forward (like a take a base with me tank idea) was a good start with the tanker allowing 3 seperate containers which allowed me to keep moving my bases fluids as i pushed forward (i didn't keep the concept of mainbase, i was a nomad based gamer after i got lasers, proper energy system setup, and kept moving forward with a Train, A cargo wagon, and 2-3 tankers. The new artillary feature really gives me a new idea for mobile base platforms on the go)

Personally i loved that feature, i used it quite extensively. At first, it took me about 7 seconds to figure out what i did wrong, probably 4 seconds longer than the average user who did explore the feature, but after that painstaking 7 seconds, i understood how to use it. To me it became a critical part of my train builds after i understood how the train setups went. All in all i understand why the dev's did it as a developer myself (i develop on the government level though not gaming wise, thats just a hobby but its for ease of user use but....). With them trying to make it simplier... in a game that really relies on the user getting hands on and fully active with the game to make very complex and optimized automation builds, i feel as though they punished us users who did use the feature. To me that sucks. Its a key part of why i literally archive all version builds, so if some core part of what i use or play on is affected, i can just roll back to the build i want up to 2yrs back if i wanted to. I just, im hoping they re-enstate this feature, or enable a option within the settings to "Disable" the overly complex feature, or re-enable it.

All in all though im glad the Dev's are actively responding, or interacting with the user basis, this is one of the very few games that i see a highly active user basis and development team that keeps its promises, or at the very least keeps us informed. Big kudos to the Dev's for staying proactive.

With that stated though i missed out on the questionaire's as i was bogged down most of the last two months developing for the government in my state and that impacted my ability to even participate. Was more focused on ironing out and simplifying stuff in the program im improving that will be used world wide by the local municipalities in the usa. So im hoping the Dev's will do a round 2 for the feature that's been taken out for those of us who missed out on it.

Big key reason i bought 4 copies, 4 through steam, and then 2 more (One through GOG, and the other through there website) Just to show my support of not only the dev team, but to support a DRM free game. Big thing for me on DRM builds.

Anyway cheers in hopes the feature is brought back, Merry christmas to the Devs, and the users as well. As for me, im gonna start playing again and sulking over the loss till i eventually adapt and over come. Because we always do.

[ili]

but its an opt-in feature by default. all 3 tanks were flow unrestricted at creation, you had to manually separate them. that itself shows that the players that used it were readily able to comprehend the 'complication'.

agreed. plus, we have pop-up tutorials now don't we?

+1
If someone don't want to use the feature of separating the tanks he can just ignore it, so why remove it?

[impetus maximus]

yeah, the fluid wagon really contributed to make Factorio GUI look like a space ship cockpit.

[Blu3wolf]

To all people complaining the end of 3-liquid wagons is the end of Factorio, the real question is : would you have missed that feature that much if it had never existed, and the fluid wagon had from start been as it is now ? You mostly miss it because you got used to it.

This is a great example, of making the mistake of allowing a feature without making sure we really wanted that in the first place. If it never existed people would have zero problems with that.

Well, before the train tank existed, feature requests with details were being made for it. So I dont think you can really claim that and expect anyone to credit it as honest.

As far as comments made above about the feature being too complex for users and being niche, not being used by beginners - the exact same applies to the circuit network. And a great deal of other stuff in this game. Should we gut all those features too?

[icanfly342]

I think most people would be fine with a single button "Separate Tanks".
So we get a 1-1-1 separation. 2-1 or 1-2 can be done manually.

[Mr. Tact]

While I haven't ever used the fluid trains -- I feel it is far more efficient and controllable to barrel stuff up. Especially if you use Angel's refining which means you can barrel most anything. That said, without the ability to easily control how much is input to the fluid tank I could see where being able to split it up would be helpful. Basically I'm saying the change doesn't impact me, but I'm not surprised some people aren't happy about losing the option.

Thanks for a great game.

[Tendies4meplz]

Why does it matter if no one would have wanted it if it didn't exist? It *does* exist. People do want it. Bit too late to hit Undo.

Why is this such a point of contention?

[rldml]

Thanks guys for all the updates.

Agree ...

In flame of discussion sometime we forgot to say thank you for 7 fast updates in last few days.

So dear devs - I don't agree with every of your decisions (fluid wagon and new design of concrete) but I think you did a very god job over all.

Agree, and same: thx for the bunch of work and updates you've done the last days/weeks...

One exception to TheRaph: concrete looks awesome now

Greetings, Ronny

[doppelEben]

Again, how do you know how many people used it? Aside from that, I disagree - since it had no negative impact on the game, it should be kept even if used by minority. There are things which are good at filling a niche.

I don't really want factorio look like that :


Because, why not add the possibility for splitter to choose how much % it spread at the left and how much at the right ? No negative impact if 50/50 by default, isn't it ?

Not in vanilla, sure, but it would be great if the devs wouldnt hard-code such vars , so that modders could create creative mods, like "configdeluxe" with all the buttons from your picture, for, lets say, the last finetuning of the megabase

atm in an bobsangelyuoki run with hard settings. I like it complex. And I would like it even more brain-complex-fucked <3