Factorio Forums

quineotio wrote: Wed Apr 02, 2025 11:31 am The way the game is currently structured you're forced to go to each of the planets before getting all the tools, which means there's an emphasis on the planets (as opposed to 1.0 in which you spend all your time working on a single factory). The problem with this is that the planets all have fairly shallow tech trees.

I think it's good that you don't get all the tools at the beginning, this makes total sense to me to have progression and to unlock techs when going to other planets.

I think it's a contradiction to claim the tech trees of the planets are fairly shallow at the same time. Especially when reading your suggestion to make all quality level on Nauvis and Foundation to come earlier. This isn't going to make the tech tree less "shallow" isn't it ?.

If you want less shallow tech tree, it means more stuff to "unlock" and thus that are "locked" at first.

Shulmeister wrote: Thu Apr 03, 2025 2:04 pm I think it's a contradiction to claim the tech trees of the planets are fairly shallow at the same time. Especially when reading your suggestion to make all quality level on Nauvis and Foundation to come earlier. This isn't going to make the tech tree less "shallow" isn't it ?.

If you want less shallow tech tree, it means more stuff to "unlock" and thus that are "locked" at first.

There's a contradiction in SA. If the point is to get to the end screen then there's a bunch of tech you don't need, or that comes too late. Alternatively if the point is to be a sandbox, it takes too long to get all the tools. I think that there either needs to be more tech - extending the length of the game and giving a more satisfying ending. OR the tech needs to be unlocked earlier so that you can play around with it sooner.

If, for example, I could use legendary quality straight away on Nauvis, I could then use legendary stuff all the way through the game. As it is, it comes so late that I don't really need it. And ALSO, you're forced to account for epic and legendary quality in your builds right from the start. AND quality isn't particularly useful when you unlock it because you don't have the recycler. So I think the tech is out of order.

It's not really about how "shallow" the tech tree is. In 1.0 you got all the tech really early, and then most of the experience (for me) came after that. In SA, I have to essentially finish my playthrough before I get all the tech, which takes weeks, which is too long if I'm expected to then go back and "build a megabase".

The fun can either be in the progression OR in playing around with the tools. I think SA fails in both, because the progression is shallow, and ALSO the progression gates the tools too much. And thus unlocking tech becomes a chore more than an interesting challenge. This is the big difference between 1.0 and SA - in 1.0 it was quick to unlock everything - days as opposed to weeks. If tech was unlocked sooner it would enable a larger range of possibilities - a larger choice of paths through the game.

As an example, you basically need to wait until after Fulgora before you engage with quality, so if you want to play with quality you're essentially forced to go to Fulgora first. And then for me, I'm basically forced to go to Gleba second, and Vulcanus third.

Consider also my point about Gleba recipes being mainly for basic resources. This is a waste of time for the most part, but if you could use these recipes on Nauvis it would open up a large range of possibilities. Or if you could use the biolab on Gleba. Or if you got the stack inserter earlier, you could use it in more places etc.

So when I say that the tech trees are shallow I'm offering two solutions. Either extend the planets with multiple science packs and more to do, or make the tech tree less restrictive so I have more choices. There's only one science pack per planet, and once you're done building it you've essentially finished the planet. And unfortunately it makes the whole game more shallow, because you spend a great deal of time going through the chore unlocking things, where you don't have many options because you don't yet have all the tools. And then you finally get all the tools and you don't need them.

For me, the fun in Factorio has NEVER been about unlocking things - it's about creating interesting builds. I just want to have more options, and I feel like the devs have strayed too far into pushing an "intended experience", which doesn't align with what I find most fun.

quineotio wrote: Thu Apr 03, 2025 3:08 pm There's a contradiction in SA.

No. It's proposing a unique mix that is very enjoyable for many players given the overwhelming positive review imo.

quineotio wrote: Thu Apr 03, 2025 3:08 pm So when I say that the tech trees are shallow I'm offering two solutions.

Imo it's not a solution, you propose 2 things that are contradictory in themselves and a downgrade compared to the current game, and the proposition that was made on this topic.

Shulmeister wrote: Thu Apr 03, 2025 6:01 pm Imo it's not a solution, you propose 2 things that are contradictory in themselves and a downgrade compared to the current game, and the proposition that was made on this topic.

You don't have to give a proper response if you don't want to, but I'm curious as to your reasoning.

Why is it a downgrade?
Why would the game be worse if a particular change was made?
Why would having more options make your experience of Space Age worse?

Shulmeister wrote: Thu Apr 03, 2025 6:01 pm that is very enjoyable for many players given the overwhelming positive review imo.

How do you know that it's overwhelmingly positive? Maybe it is, but what are your metrics? Maybe a lot of people just stopped playing without saying anything. Where do you get your data? Reddit? Reddit is harshly moderated and negativity is downvoted off the platform. Maybe it's only overwhelmingly positive amongst people who still play and comment and don't get downvoted?

Additionally, it may be the case that people enjoy SA but would enjoy it even more if changes were made. I am in this camp - I do enjoy certain aspects of SA, but would enjoy it more if I had more options.

Also, the majority opinion is not a good indicator good game design. It's possible that most people don't like Gleba, or quality. If true, would your argument be that these things should be removed?

I'm giving feedback and making suggestions because I think a game which I like could be better.

quineotio wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 2:22 am You don't have to give a proper response if you don't want to, but I'm curious as to your reasoning.
Why is it a downgrade?

Your propostions are off-topic regarding this thread.

They aim at removing part of the progression in the game by having "all the tools available at the start" like a "sandbox" , which would then remove any incentive to make a factory in the first place since those produce science and there would be no need for science if you have already all technology available.

Shulmeister wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:01 am They aim at removing part of the progression in the game by having "all the tools available at the start"

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

quineotio wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:46 am https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Straw_man

You have achieved to convinced me that you have no argument to adress the fact that if you don't have to unlock techs you don't have purpose for building a factory that makes science.

Shulmeister wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 10:50 am You have achieved to convinced me that you have no argument to adress the fact that if you don't have to unlock techs you don't have purpose for building a factory that makes science.

Did you even attempt to understand my point of view? Be honest with yourself.

Shulmeister wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 7:01 am Your propostions are off-topic regarding this thread.

They aim at removing part of the progression in the game by having "all the tools available at the start" like a "sandbox" , which would then remove any incentive to make a factory in the first place since those produce science and there would be no need for science if you have already all technology available.

agreed

quineotio wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 11:16 am

Shulmeister wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 10:50 am You have achieved to convinced me that you have no argument to adress the fact that if you don't have to unlock techs you don't have purpose for building a factory that makes science.

Did you even attempt to understand my point of view? Be honest with yourself.

I think I understand what Shulmeister means even if he goes too far when summarizing it.

Essentially you want the important techs earlier so that you already have them when they could be useful for your factory. You want to build a factory on each planet once in its finished state and never touch it again. Research then should unlock the next stages for the next planet only. A fully incremental design, like an RPG where you go into the next area, need totally new items and never look back. Is that correct so far?

This may sound like a good idea to you and maybe this is exactly how you like to play. But for me and maybe many other players this would destroy a lot of complexity because transforming the factory is part of the interesting puzzle many players like to solve in Factorio. Without it you can play the game once, decide on a blueprint of the best way any factory part has to look like and never need to play the game again. It is changed into a linear game and in my view that makes it more trivial (compared to a non-linear game with the same content)

The solution you proposed listed many of the most interesting techs moved to or invented for the later planets and put them early on on nauvis thereby "stealing" them from the rest of the game. Sure, you still would have tech to research after that, but not any desirable because it could help you with optimizing your existing factory. Essentially the new planets would be underwhelming targets now, nice to have like a trophy or achievement or stepping stones to the "you won" screen, but not desirable for their content or tech you get. And this is what I think Shulmeister wants to object to.

In my first game I didn't really know what to expect from the planets, but Gleba was the one I wanted to visit the most, just from descriptions and player feedback. Now that I have been on all planets and know what to expect I probably will ponder for days which planet to visit first in a new playthrough. I am like the donkey standing between three hay stacks. And that is a good thing. For me this means replayability.

meganothing wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 3:00 pm Essentially you want the important techs earlier so that you already have them when they could be useful for your factory. You want to build a factory on each planet once in its finished state and never touch it again. Research then should unlock the next stages for the next planet only. A fully incremental design, like an RPG where you go into the next area, need totally new items and never look back. Is that correct so far?

No not really. I'd like more options, and I think certain things would be more useful if they came earlier. I feel railroaded in SA. It feels like a series of "I want to do this but I can't until I do this" until I'm all the way through the game. You have to play the game the way the devs want, rather than the way I want to play.

As far as more options go, the recycler basically gates quality, so if you want to use quality you basically have to go to Fulgora first. The biolab being Nauvis only means you can't use Gleba as your science hub. Legendary quality being on Aquilo means you only get it after you've basically finished the game (but you still have to account for it as soon as you use ANY quality). Foundation on Aquilo means I've already built my Fulgora factory before I get it. Another example is cliff explosives. If I played with cliffs I'd feel forced to to go Vulcanus first, but then I couldn't use quality because I wouldn't have recyclers.

The issue is, if I've already built my factory before I get everything, and because it takes a long time, and I have to build 5 factories + space platforms, there isn't much room left in terms of UPS or research to fully utilize all the tools. And I feel like I basically have to do things in a particular order because of the way things are gated. In my last playthrough I was into the 20s in infinite research and was at over 100k espm before I was at the point where I would use foundation, but it was too late at that point, and it's too expensive.

If SA was shorter it wouldn't be as much of an issue, but it's a big investment to do a playthrough, so I don't like not being able to do what I want to do for a long time. This didn't really happen in 1.0, both because it was shorter and because every building served a unique role. But in SA it's like setting up oil, where you have to do a lot of things before you get anything from it - but worse because it takes much longer to set up a planet and you have to do it four times. And it's way more tedious to transport things than just moving stuff to the other side of your factory.

Another example is with stack inserters on Gleba - you only get them after you've finished your factory. So what I really want to do is have all the tools and make something with them, but I have to play through the whole game to get everything, and then by the time I get everything I don't actually need the tools because I've already completed the game. So I have the option to tear everything down and rebuild, but it's too much of a hassle.

Which is why I would either like the tech to be unlocked earlier, OR a bunch more content added. Except that adding more content may make UPS a real problem.

meganothing wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 3:00 pm Without it you can play the game once, decide on a blueprint of the best way any factory part has to look like and never need to play the game again. It is changed into a linear game and in my view that makes it more trivial (compared to a non-linear game with the same content)

I disagree on this point. Consider 1.0. There are so many ways to play, even though there's less stuff than in SA. I actually think the current tech tree reduces replayability because it mandates progression. As an example, imagine if legendary quality was available on Nauvis. Now you have the option to stay on Nauvis and go big to get legendary and go through the game with the best stuff. Imagine if recyclers were available - now you could use quality on every planet without having to go to Fulgora first.

I don't understand the argument that it makes the game more trivial. It makes the game more open and gives you more choice.

meganothing wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 3:00 pm Essentially the new planets would be underwhelming targets now,

This is a problem with lack of content on the planets, although I only think this is really true for Vulcanus - Gleba and Fulgora have interesting mechanics. Stealing stuff from Nauvis makes Nauvis worse. This is why I said I think there needs to me more content. But an alternative would be to make the content that already exists more useful - like allowing Gleba recipes on Nauvis, or the biolab on Gleba. As it currently is, there's not much incentive to make anything other than Ag. science, stack inserters and rocket parts on Gleba. If there was more use for Gleba after your initial factory, there would be more use for stack inserters with Gleba recipes, and there would be more incentive to build bigger. You would have the OPTION to e.g. replace your miners on Nauvis with bacteria. I think that would be cool.

meganothing wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 3:00 pm Now that I have been on all planets and know what to expect I probably will ponder for days which planet to visit first in a new playthrough. I am like the donkey standing between three hay stacks. And that is a good thing. For me this means replayability.

It's the opposite for me. I feel restricted, and I feel that game is less replayable. Also, I don't think having more options would ruin your replayability - you would still have a choice what you do first, and how you do things. I don't buy the argument about blueprints - that's your choice to play that way. I don't use blueprints except for rail stuff. I also make a point of using belts for most things, because I think it's more interesting. And I've been restricting myself to a certain nuclear plant setup and made an attempt to be efficient. Because it's an interesting (to me) challenge, that I find fun.

And there are a bunch of other things that I think would be fun that I can't do with the current design.

quineotio wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 11:16 am Did you even attempt to understand my point of view? Be honest with yourself.

Yes , that's why i said most of it if off topic regarding this thread, you also posted it on this other thread viewtopic.php?p=667884#p667884 where it was adressed and you ignored it only to repost roughly the same ramble on this topic.

Roughly the same but i noted at least one difference :

on one topic you say

quineotio wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 5:28 pm Gleba and Fulgora have interesting mechanics

but on the other topic you say :

quineotio wrote: Wed Nov 27, 2024 1:34 pm The Fulgora sorting mechanic is interesting, but the planet itself has basically nothing else.

So i'm curious which are the other interesting mechanics from Fulgora that you omited to mention in the other thread ?

Shulmeister wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 5:59 pm that's why i said most of it if off topic regarding this thread, you also posted it on this other thread viewtopic.php?p=667884#p667884 where it was adressed and you ignored it only to repost roughly the same ramble on this topic.

at least on the other thread it's not off topic.

It was by the way addressed that your playstyle is very much the cause of the UPS problem because you describe how you do not use the new tech on the planet where you unlock them, if you "finish" Gleba without using stack inserter, that's like the same as "finishing" Aquilo without using fusion reactor. You can, but then you are voluntarily removing yourself the most UPS efficient tech. The same goes for legendary quality, by the time you unlock it it means the rest of your base is "sub legendary", and thus could be made much more UPS efficient with an upgrade of quality, if you wanted to go further in the game be it with additionnal modded content ( or something as proposed on this thread) or just big numbers, or just new puzzle and build.

quineotio wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 5:28 pm Which is why I would either like the tech to be unlocked earlier, OR a bunch more content added. Except that adding more content may make UPS a real problem.

This is very well illustrating of a player requesting something inconsistent imo, because if a bunch more content was added, then that same player would complain that it is available too late.

" If not everything is available right away i'm going to complain i feel railroad and forced to unlocked stuff not in the way i personnaly want".

"If everything is available right away, i'm going to complain that the tech trees are shallow and there is no good reward on the other planets and really all could have been put in nauvis" .

That's what i have been noting as arguments, and it bounce back and forth, or run in circle not sure what is the most appropriate to describe. As if the person kept repeating i want a odd number of thing AND also an even number of that thing depending on who ask the question x).

yeah.. so after we have all we want legendary... whats there to do ... better make end game planets that are way harder to reach than aquilo and where we dont gain other toys coz im lazy to keep restructuring everything... but better have now some place to fight or i dunno do something end game-ish and randomly generated , like encounter an alien species or a federation and do space transport for them...or keep an area defended by asteroids and get from there something we can use for fun ... i dunno ...

quineotio wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 5:28 pm

meganothing wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 3:00 pm Essentially you want the important techs earlier so that you already have them when they could be useful for your factory. You want to build a factory on each planet once in its finished state and never touch it again. Research then should unlock the next stages for the next planet only. A fully incremental design, like an RPG where you go into the next area, need totally new items and never look back. Is that correct so far?

No not really. I'd like more options, and I think certain things would be more useful if they came earlier. I feel railroaded in SA. It feels like a series of "I want to do this but I can't until I do this" until I'm all the way through the game. You have to play the game the way the devs want, rather than the way I want to play.

As far as more options go, the recycler basically gates quality, so if you want to use quality you basically have to go to Fulgora first.

Well, I dabbled with quality on Nauvis, without a recycler, without even going to space yet. Sure, you can not do mass production or go exclusively for rare items, but I had no problem getting quality items where it makes sense.

The biolab being Nauvis only means you can't use Gleba as your science hub.

The thing is, you can. It just isn't the most efficient way. I am quite sure that also some players didn't bother with biolabs. The game being a sandbox means everyone can set his own goals and that might not involve building a max-SPM factory.

Legendary quality being on Aquilo means you only get it after you've basically finished the game (but you still have to account for it as soon as you use ANY quality).

Again this depends on what you see as your goal and your finish line. If reaching aquilo or the asteroid belt is your goal then yes. But if that is your goal you don't need biolabs and then you could use Gleba as your science hub.

Another player might just have set his sight on getting a legendary power amor, so for him legendary quality would not be a means to an end but the end itself.

Foundation on Aquilo means I've already built my Fulgora factory before I get it.

Another player might get the idea to just build minimal factories on each of the planets, then for example return to Fulgora with Foundations to build the expanded version, or a version that now uses and produces legendary quality.

Another example is cliff explosives. If I played with cliffs I'd feel forced to to go Vulcanus first, but then I couldn't use quality because I wouldn't have recyclers.

Some players will go to Vulcanus first for the cliff explosives, then in the next game go to Fulgora or Gleba first. That is probably what I will be doing as well.

meganothing wrote: Sun Apr 06, 2025 2:57 am Again this depends on what you see as your goal and your finish line. If reaching aquilo or the asteroid belt is your goal then yes. But if that is your goal you don't need biolabs and then you could use Gleba as your science hub.

This part illustrates my point, particularly "if the asteroid belt is your goal... you don't need".

You don't need very much of the game at all to reach the asteroid belt. You can completely forgo quality, foundries/EM plants (except for science), biolabs, and even building a factory on the new planets, other than for science, and you can import everything you need and just use bots for everything. Which points to reaching the "end" NOT being a major part of the game. Just as in 1.0, the end screen is not the point. So I don't understand the arguments about "progression". Factorio isn't, and never has been about tech progression. The mantra up until SA was "the game starts at the rocket launch", i.e. the point where you have all the tech.

So why are people defending it being harder to reach the "beginning of the game"? Go onto reddit and what do you see? The timeline filled with people celebrating reaching the solar system edge? No, you see people posting their builds, because that's the fun part of Factorio.

So it goes back to what I've already said - if the point is to reach the end screen, there needs to be more content, OR if the point is to play around in a sandbox and build things, give us the tech earlier.

quineotio wrote: Sun Apr 06, 2025 6:00 am So why are people defending it being harder to reach the "beginning of the game"? Go onto reddit and what do you see? The timeline filled with people celebrating reaching the solar system edge? No, you see people posting their builds, because that's the fun part of Factorio.

This :

mmmPI wrote: Fri Apr 04, 2025 8:51 pm This is very well illustrating of a player requesting something inconsistent imo, because if a bunch more content was added, then that same player would complain that it is available too late.

" If not everything is available right away i'm going to complain i feel railroad and forced to unlocked stuff not in the way i personnaly want".

"If everything is available right away, i'm going to complain that the tech trees are shallow and there is no good reward on the other planets and really all could have been put in nauvis" .

That's what i have been noting as arguments, and it bounce back and forth, or run in circle not sure what is the most appropriate to describe. As if the person kept repeating i want a odd number of thing AND also an even number of that thing depending on who ask the question x).

quineotio wrote: Sun Apr 06, 2025 6:00 am The mantra up until SA was "the game starts at the rocket launch"

No, this is just one playstyle, many players try to speedrun, or play with extra difficulty and consider the rocket launch a end game goal.

Shulmeister wrote: Sun Apr 06, 2025 6:03 am

quineotio wrote: Sun Apr 06, 2025 6:00 am So it goes back to what I've already said - if the point is to reach the end screen, there needs to be more content, OR if the point is to play around in a sandbox and build things, give us the tech earlier.

quineotio wrote: Sun Apr 06, 2025 7:00 am So it goes back to what I've already said - if the point is to reach the end screen, there needs to be more content, OR if the point is to play around in a sandbox and build things, give us the tech earlier.

You asked why people do not agree with you, and i wanted to point out that i share mmmPI's reasonning that you seem stuck repeating inconsistent request.

Like you want the number to be odd and even at the same time.