Factorio should have DLC.

[rldml]

The basic "group up, move to source of pollution, blindly charge whatever is in range" mentality of aliens cannot be helped, it's part of the core game and done that way for performance reasons.

And could be part of a DLC.

Bridges: Not really moddable, requires some core game changes. Same with tunnels. These have been requested often.

That's exactly what i meant, not moddable, but therefore a possible part of a future DLC

- Programmable train system: LTN, Fat Controller mods?

They do much more and are far more complex than what's really needed. They are game changers and they only work, if you use trains exactly the way how they are defined through the mod-logic.

Maybe this would do the job, but in fact, instead of making the game better they just degrade the train part and make the game less fun.

I just want one (!) additional way to set a defined unique target with a simple circuit logic without that complicated stuff LTN, Smart Trains and other mods add. I've tried them, and it is nice they fit your personal needs, but for me, they are simply "too much".

- Module damage: No. Just no. Factories don't suffer wear and tear either from normal use, so player modules should not either. Nothing is more frustrating then being in the middle of a biter base and suddenly your damn armor falls apart, or shield mods kapoof.

It's not consistent, that you build only one time in the game some batteries, some shields, some exosceletts and some reactors, and after that, never again. It just costs time and only once. If they don't use up (how it is actually): fine, but it still break the game idea, where your goal is to automate everything. You will NEVER do it for that stuff, because it isn't worth it.

It would be much easier to implement two or three more armours without modularising grids, but different functions: one with a personal roboport (for construction purposes), one with exoscelett- and shield-function (for fights) and possibly one or two more. This would reduce the "i have to craft this shit manually"-part to a minimum without loosing the base functionality provided through grids...

Because I can guarantee you - chopping up a game into features and selling them piece by piece, is going to piss a lot of people off.

I'm talking about stuff, that isn't even planned for 1.0.

NOBODY out there can argue, this are features Wube software has to implement in the game from the beginning, because if they don't plan it for release, what are you expecting here?

At least, we don't know, what is planned after 1.0 - perhaps we will see continuous development, perhaps Wube will start another project... Nobody knows.

Reduce your expectations from what we will see after 0.17.x, because you don't know if there will be more features that announcend until now.

You can check his post history. Don't try to reason with him, he is not here to have a meaningful discussion.

Well...

Until now, i got no meaningful reply with counter argument more than "i don't like it, just use LTN and fuck off". Even you two don't say nothing more than that. There is no meaningful discussion possible if there is no one who else, who wants to explain his position.

I hate high-maintenance non-automatable crafting games.

My train-suggestion would do exactly that: make the game more automable with less maintenance. So, i don't see your problem...

[Darthlawsuit]

I'd like to see this as well although they should focus on larger expansion sized dlc instead of the far too frequent EU4 major dlc. One or two dlc a year is good. Then throw in minor music and art related dlc for people who will throw money at that for no reason.

Paradox games just overwhelm most other games in number of features and they just keep improving. Most games feel like abandon ware because they get released, a few fixes happen, and then its abandoned with no hope of anything new being added to it.

[Aeternus]

The basic "group up, move to source of pollution, blindly charge whatever is in range" mentality of aliens cannot be helped, it's part of the core game and done that way for performance reasons.

And could be part of a DLC.

I have to ask. What do -you- believe that "DLC" is? Because I think our understanding of the term fundamentally differs. You seem to think that paid expansions are "DLC". And that gating off popular requests for features to be included in such is a good thing. That you would break up the community between the haves and havenots - which would break the multiplayer since everyone would need to have exactly the same DLC packages. With Factorio's free mods it's not that big a deal, since it's -free- DLC, and the game can basically be triggered to go find on the mod portal whatever mods you're missing to join a server. With paid mods (which I think you define as DLC) that's not possible.

Bridges: Not really moddable, requires some core game changes. Same with tunnels. These have been requested often.

That's exactly what i meant, not moddable, but therefore a possible part of a future DLC

Up to the devs really, but I'd rather have such rather basic concepts included in the base game, then having to wait for an expansion to come out.

Programmable train system: LTN, Fat Controller mods?

They do much more and are far more complex than what's really needed. They are game changers and they only work, if you use trains exactly the way how they are defined through the mod-logic.

Maybe this would do the job, but in fact, instead of making the game better they just degrade the train part and make the game less fun.

I just want one (!) additional way to set a defined unique target with a simple circuit logic without that complicated stuff LTN, Smart Trains and other mods add. I've tried them, and it is nice they fit your personal needs, but for me, they are simply "too much".

So you're not happy with the simple system, but you're unable to figure out the complex system that the mods provide which would meet your needs? Sounds more like a player issue then a game designer one if you ask me...

- Module damage: No. Just no. Factories don't suffer wear and tear either from normal use, so player modules should not either. Nothing is more frustrating then being in the middle of a biter base and suddenly your damn armor falls apart, or shield mods kapoof.

It's not consistent, that you build only one time in the game some batteries, some shields, some exosceletts and some reactors, and after that, never again. It just costs time and only once. If they don't use up (how it is actually): fine, but it still break the game idea, where your goal is to automate everything. You will NEVER do it for that stuff, because it isn't worth it.

It would be much easier to implement two or three more armours without modularising grids, but different functions: one with a personal roboport (for construction purposes), one with exoscelett- and shield-function (for fights) and possibly one or two more. This would reduce the "i have to craft this shit manually"-part to a minimum without loosing the base functionality provided through grids...

You don't keep building science facilities. You don't keep building launch facilities. You don't keep building nuclear reactors. Some buildings and items just require a VERY limited amount to be produced, because they are basically catalysts, not consumables.

Because I can guarantee you - chopping up a game into features and selling them piece by piece, is going to piss a lot of people off.

I'm talking about stuff, that isn't even planned for 1.0.
NOBODY out there can argue, this are features Wube software has to implement in the game from the beginning, because if they don't plan it for release, what are you expecting here?
At least, we don't know, what is planned after 1.0 - perhaps we will see continuous development, perhaps Wube will start another project... Nobody knows.
Reduce your expectations from what we will see after 0.17.x, because you don't know if there will be more features that announcend until now.

What I am expecting from Wube is that they keep doing what they have been doing and what has been earning them a lot of community goodwill: Keep listening to what the playerbase wants, keep fixing their game and polishing it where able, and keep informing players. Their FFF and roadmap has been very clear on the planned stuff, but they've deviated a little from it as the game evolved (implementing nuclear for instance, and ditching dirty mining in favor of research). Keep in mind, Wube is a small team with a VERY popular game - a consistent top 10 game on Steam is no small feat - so them starting additional projects when their main game isn't even out of early access makes little sense to me. If this game keeps going the way it is going, I suspect it'll be a widely popular one on the PC platform for years to come. Especially considering the dreck bigger publishers are trying to shove down gamers throats... Single player is dead? Yyea, I have to disagree.

[rldml]

I have to ask. What do -you- believe that "DLC" is? Because I think our understanding of the term fundamentally differs. You seem to think that paid expansions are "DLC". And that gating off popular requests for features to be included in such is a good thing.

DLC is any content not included in the base game. It is irrelevant for this definition, if you have to pay for it.

That you would break up the community between the haves and havenots - which would break the multiplayer since everyone would need to have exactly the same DLC packages. With Factorio's free mods it's not that big a deal, since it's -free- DLC, and the game can basically be triggered to go find on the mod portal whatever mods you're missing to join a server. With paid mods (which I think you define as DLC) that's not possible.

This problem can be handled in different manners - as an example look at EUIV of paradox, that has exactly the same "problem".

Bridges: Not really moddable, requires some core game changes. Same with tunnels. These have been requested often.

That's exactly what i meant, not moddable, but therefore a possible part of a future DLC

Up to the devs really, but I'd rather have such rather basic concepts included in the base game, then having to wait for an expansion to come out.

Yeah, but we don't always get what we want. Actually this feature isn't even planned, so you possibly never get it. Wube has the opportunity to implement this later and perhaps for a price. I didn't say they will, only they could.

Programmable train system: LTN, Fat Controller mods?

They do much more and are far more complex than what's really needed. They are game changers and they only work, if you use trains exactly the way how they are defined through the mod-logic.

Maybe this would do the job, but in fact, instead of making the game better they just degrade the train part and make the game less fun.

I just want one (!) additional way to set a defined unique target with a simple circuit logic without that complicated stuff LTN, Smart Trains and other mods add. I've tried them, and it is nice they fit your personal needs, but for me, they are simply "too much".

So you're not happy with the simple system, but you're unable to figure out the complex system that the mods provide which would meet your needs? Sounds more like a player issue then a game designer one if you ask me...

Read what i wrote: The mods do much more than wanted, they predefine the way you have to work with trains in the game. There is no much room left for own solutions or ideas. For the group of people who don't want to spend much time into this part of the game the mods are just doing fine. Install and use them, you will be happy with it.

I care more about this part of the game: Setting up a self designed train stacker with its own stacking logic, build requesting and service sites, raillines, prioritizing trains and more, is a very central part of the game for me. Even more than building a megafactory (that seems to be the main goal for most players).

If i replace this part through the installation of a mod, which will do this job and left only the placement of railtracks and some configuration-windows, means: i can simply uninstall factorio.

That's why i want only a very small additional way to tell a train: drive to train stop with virtual id X, where X is told through circuit networks.

You don't keep building science facilities. You don't keep building launch facilities. You don't keep building nuclear reactors.

actually i do.

Some buildings and items just require a VERY limited amount to be produced, because they are basically catalysts, not consumables.

It's not that i build x science facilities and never build more. I expand them often, as i expand the producing capacities of my factory over time.

It's different to my MK2-Armour, which i build only once for real and never automate...

What I am expecting from Wube is that they keep doing what they have been doing and what has been earning them a lot of community goodwill: Keep listening to what the playerbase wants, keep fixing their game and polishing it where able, and keep informing players. Their FFF and roadmap has been very clear on the planned stuff, but they've deviated a little from it as the game evolved (implementing nuclear for instance, and ditching dirty mining in favor of research). Keep in mind, Wube is a small team with a VERY popular game - a consistent top 10 game on Steam is no small feat - so them starting additional projects when their main game isn't even out of early access makes little sense to me. If this game keeps going the way it is going, I suspect it'll be a widely popular one on the PC platform for years to come. Especially considering the dreck bigger publishers are trying to shove down gamers throats... Single player is dead? Yyea, I have to disagree.

At least we can just wait and see what Wube will do in future. All i want to say is: If they change after(!) 1.0 to a continuous development model where i have to pay some bucks one ot two times a year to keep one of my favorite games maintained, it would'nt bother me. You can have another opinion of course, but please respect mine.

Thx.

[Jap2.0]

How would this work with multiplayer and mod compatability?

[xZippy]

You are not a game developer. And developing game are expensive. Buying license for software, pay tax, pay crew, pay electricity, etc.

That huge pile of money could wasted faster than you imagine. And this game are 1 IP game.

You never open your mind. Didn't you ?

Are you a game developer? Your mentality on all this is something most good devs would never have. Ever.

This game works just fine with no extra "pay for more" features. I'm actually glad the devs never took that path.

[rldml]

Are you a game developer? Your mentality on all this is something most good devs would never have. Ever.

I don't know how you call the reality you live in, but here on earth, most people have to pay their bills. Especially a small and independend game developer like Wube Software has no publisher or other financee in it's back to take over this part. So, a good dev has to consider this as a part of his or her job and has to plan with the ressources they have.

This game works just fine with no extra "pay for more" features. I'm actually glad the devs never took that path.

The game isn't at 1.0 yet and nobody would be happy if we have to pay money for a feature they already planned for 1.0. This Thread talks about the time after 1.0.

Greetings, Ronny

[Aeternus]

I don't know how you call the reality you live in, but here on earth, most people have to pay their bills. Especially a small and independend game developer like Wube Software has no publisher or other financee in it's back to take over this part. So, a good dev has to consider this as a part of his or her job and has to plan with the ressources they have.

Yyyea. I think you'll find that having a publisher, especially one of the big juggernauts like EA, Activision or Ubisoft actually costs more then it delivers, especially for a smaller project or early release or niche game. I could go on a rant here, but save to say that -not- having that kind of label on this game is one of the things that drew me to Factorio. I want to get away from companies that focus monetization first, graphics, then fun and gameplay third, and maaaaaybe bugfixing and polish fourth. If the buggy release warrants fixing. Wube has a completely different mentality when it comes to game design, as is evident by their communication with the playerbase and practically weekly updates, each with fixes of recently reported bugs.

So far Wube doesn't seem to have financial issues, at least, I've not heared about any. So... I guess they have planned with the resources they have and are doing good as is.

[Hellatze]

I don't know how you call the reality you live in, but here on earth, most people have to pay their bills. Especially a small and independend game developer like Wube Software has no publisher or other financee in it's back to take over this part. So, a good dev has to consider this as a part of his or her job and has to plan with the ressources they have.

Yyyea. I think you'll find that having a publisher, especially one of the big juggernauts like EA, Activision or Ubisoft actually costs more then it delivers, especially for a smaller project or early release or niche game. I could go on a rant here, but save to say that -not- having that kind of label on this game is one of the things that drew me to Factorio. I want to get away from companies that focus monetization first, graphics, then fun and gameplay third, and maaaaaybe bugfixing and polish fourth. If the buggy release warrants fixing. Wube has a completely different mentality when it comes to game design, as is evident by their communication with the playerbase and practically weekly updates, each with fixes of recently reported bugs.

So far Wube doesn't seem to have financial issues, at least, I've not heared about any. So... I guess they have planned with the resources they have and are doing good as is.

However this is not the talk of financial issue. This is talk about "DLC".

The purpose of DLC are giving more depths to gameplay, but first the game must be complete.

I just want factorio improved well.

[Deadlock989]

Wow. First time I've ever seen someone ask for pay-per-feature. Do you want microtransactions and loot crates as well?

If you've got money to burn, donate it to modders.

[Hellatze]

Wow. First time I've ever seen someone ask for pay-per-feature. Do you want microtransactions and loot crates as well?

If you've got money to burn, donate it to modders.

no, i didnt want lootcrates and microtransaction.

i can tolerate DLC in games, since DLC means adding more content and supporting future development.

however i only allowed on trusted dev.

[rldml]

Wow. First time I've ever seen someone ask for pay-per-feature. Do you want microtransactions and loot crates as well?

I'm too tired to explain again what i think and why. Just read my comments in this thread more carefully. Thx.

If you've got money to burn, donate it to modders.

If someone write the addon i want to have, i would actually pay for it. But i strongly believe, the stuff i want is simply not moddable, since the mod-api doesn't support the required functionality right now.

Greetings, Ronny

[Deadlock989]

Wow. First time I've ever seen someone ask for pay-per-feature. Do you want microtransactions and loot crates as well?

I'm too tired to explain again what i think and why. Just read my comments in this thread more carefully. Thx.

Wasn't actually talking to you, thx.

If someone write the addon i want to have, i would actually pay for it. But i strongly believe, the stuff i want is simply not moddable, since the mod-api doesn't support the required functionality right now.

Greetings, Ronny

I've had two things added to the API this week. Buy me a coffee?

[rldml]

If someone write the addon i want to have, i would actually pay for it. But i strongly believe, the stuff i want is simply not moddable, since the mod-api doesn't support the required functionality right now.

Greetings, Ronny

I've had two things added to the API this week. Buy me a coffee?

Coffee should never be a problem

If i can realize this: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53792, you can have beer instead...

[Deadlock989]

If i can realize this: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53792, you can have beer instead...

I've not had the time nor inclination to mess with trains yet so I'm pretty ignorant about how they work "under the hood". But I'm certain there are mods which do one of the things you ask for, and maybe the other one as well, as far as I can understand it, and I think you know that, but you find them "too complicated". That's fine, if it's the one I'm thinking of, I'm not a fan either. But you're not going to get GUI tweaks and quality-of-life stuff like that in DLC. And even if you did, who's to say it won't be "too complicated" for you then? And you can already do at least half of what you're after with circuit networks.

All DLC does is split the community into people who have it and people who don't. It's grim, and fosters resentment. I've been playing computer games for nearly 40 years, since Pong. There are a handful of games which I'm embarrassed to say that I've spent hundreds and hundreds of hours on. Factorio is one, there are a handful of others, and none of them have DLC. Leave that nonsense to the likes of EA and Frontier.

This game has great developers, it's an utterly absorbing puzzle, with a mostly very clever and civil fan base. We need DLC like a hole in the head. Buy another copy or a T-shirt if you think Wube are skint. I think they're doing great. Ultimately I want them to drop this game and work on Factorio 2 and they can have my money, my body, whatever.

[CureSafaia]

I bought Factorio because it was a full game for a cheap price and that is absolutely a selling point, and I think Factorio sold millions because it is actually an awesome full game for a tight price.

Many Paradox games are terrible without DLCs and costs a LOT when you add DLC, so no, the "DLCs" that means actual new content to an already awesome games are what they used to be but are not today in most games.

I would have not bought Factorio if it was as empty as recent Paradox games, I tried Factorio full before buying (also because I don't trust early access games).

So when you say you allow only trusted dev but you talked about Paradox in your first post make me slightly smile, because I think Paradox is actually really bad at making quality DLC, they might be open about their DLCs, but that's it, a game that costs 250 bucks, no thanks, and I don't think Paradox sold millions of their last Apocalypse Stellaris DLC I regret buying.

I think continued development of Factorio and adding free features make the game still selling today to new people while making a shitload of DLC for a 5 years old game is actually terrifying to new players (EU4 250 bucks, I did not buy that ofc).

[rldml]

If i can realize this: viewtopic.php?f=6&t=53792, you can have beer instead...

I've not had the time nor inclination to mess with trains yet so I'm pretty ignorant about how they work "under the hood".

I don't prefer to change the train path finding behavior. I just want to extend the way it gets his destination before it calculate his path.

But I'm certain there are mods which do one of the things you ask for, and maybe the other one as well, as far as I can understand it, and I think you know that, but you find them "too complicated". That's fine, if it's the one I'm thinking of, I'm not a fan either.

They are doing "too much". The take over a complete puzzle part of the game i want to solute by myself with the help of ciruit logic.

But you're not going to get GUI tweaks and quality-of-life stuff like that in DLC.

It's no "quality-of-life stuff", because vanilla just do not support a solution in general for my problem.

And even if you did, who's to say it won't be "too complicated" for you then?

If that's the case, i start playing super mario bros. again and shut up. Promised.

And you can already do at least half of what you're after with circuit networks.

Perhaps i missed the really simple solution and someone can tell me where's my fault. Imagine this scenario:

You have four train stops, called "StationA", "StationA" (in form of a train stacker), "StationB" (100 tiles away), "StationB" (1000 tiles away, in another direction). Both "StationB" are active through circuit network, because both requesting stuff our imagined train supplies actually.

How do you tell trainA it has to drive to the 100 tiles "StationB" and a second trainB to drive to the 1000 tiles "StationB"?

Yeah, you could rename "StationB" in "StationB_1" and "StationB_2", but that's not the way a stacker should work, because in that case you need at least one train especially for every train stop "StationB", because you cannot tell the train to drive to a stop called "StationB_z" where z is the number it gets from somewhere. I want x trains in a dynamically extendable train stacker with the same schedule instead, or at least the availibilty to change a schedule with ciruit logic.

Greetings Ronny

[Jap2.0]

Perhaps i missed the really simple solution and someone can tell me where's my fault. Imagine this scenario:

You have four train stops, called "StationA", "StationA" (in form of a train stacker), "StationB" (100 tiles away), "StationB" (1000 tiles away, in another direction). Both "StationB" are active through circuit network, because both requesting stuff our imagined train supplies actually.

How do you tell trainA it has to drive to the 100 tiles "StationB" and a second trainB to drive to the 1000 tiles "StationB"?

Yeah, you could rename "StationB" in "StationB_1" and "StationB_2", but that's not the way a stacker should work, because in that case you need at least one train especially for every train stop "StationB", because you cannot tell the train to drive to a stop called "StationB_z" where z is the number it gets from somewhere. I want x trains in a dynamically extendable train stacker with the same schedule instead, or at least the availibilty to change a schedule with ciruit logic.

Greetings Ronny

To clarify: you want one train to go to each available station, which will be turned off after the train is there and are arbitrarily turned on again?

[rldml]

To clarify: you want one train to go to each available station, which will be turned off after the train is there and are arbitrarily turned on again?

No - that would be easy

I want, that a train get his next target based on circuit network conditions instead of a hard coded scheduling.

Or to stay in my example: I want a way to tell a train, it has to target the 1000 tiles "StationB", even when there is another "StationB", which is possibly nearer.

[Jap2.0]

To clarify: you want one train to go to each available station, which will be turned off after the train is there and are arbitrarily turned on again?

No - that would be easy

I want, that a train get his next target based on circuit network conditions instead of a hard coded scheduling.

Or to stay in my example: I want a way to tell a train, it has to target the 1000 tiles "StationB", even when there is another "StationB", which is possibly nearer.

Could you turn off the nearer station B or strongly discourage pathing there via circuits? Turning it off would solve the problem for good, and adding red signals should also work. Problems would still arise if you try to add aditional station Bs, or send trains to multiple simultaneously.