Factorio Forums

The water input for coal liquification is on the opposite side from the water input for advanced oil processing. This seems to be an oversight that should be fixed. It makes it much harder to switch back and forth between the two recipes.

I agree, in principle.

However, I'm afraid that if they fix that now, there will likely be a shitstorm from people whose bases suddenly stopped working.

In the long run, though, I think it would be best to fix it. It would probably be better to fix it sooner rather than later, so that it will be less work for everyone to adapt their bases to the changed input.

An alternative would be to allow buildings to accept fluid from all inputs, or at least be able to swap the fluid inputs, as has been suggested in this thread:
http://forums.factorio.com/viewtopic.php?f=6&t=30390

silentdeth wrote:The water input for coal liquification is on the opposite side from the water input for advanced oil processing. This seems to be an oversight that should be fixed. It makes it much harder to switch back and forth between the two recipes.

Why would you want to switch back and forth between two completely different recipes?

Klonan wrote: Why would you want to switch back and forth between two completely different recipes?

Because I ran out of coal? Because the ratios changed, and I'm adjusting things? Because the oil wells have slowed down and the flow rate had decreased? Because I added beacons/modules, thus need fewer of one or the other? Because reasons.

silentdeth wrote:

Klonan wrote: Why would you want to switch back and forth between two completely different recipes?

Because I ran out of coal? Because the ratios changed, and I'm adjusting things? Because the oil wells have slowed down and the flow rate had decreased? Because I added beacons/modules, thus need fewer of one or the other? Because reasons.

Then adapt to the new recipe? You don't complain that iron-gear wheels don't take the same ingredients as copper-cable,
The logistical challenge is part of the gameplay, and the variation in recipes and processes it what makes it all fun

Simplifying it won't make you design something more interesting, interesting things happen when you apply limitations

Klonan wrote:The logistical challenge is part of the gameplay, and the variation in recipes and processes it what makes it all fun

Yes, I totally agree.

However, I'm not sure if it is a "logistical challenge" or rather an "annoyance" if the position of water is arbitrarily reversed on certain recipes. Since water is required for many recipes, it would seem more meaningful to me if the position of water were consistent everywhere. That way, it would also be a lot easier to remember.

In the case described by the original poster, the two recipes are actually completely identical, except for one ingredient. Therefore, in my opinion, it does not make sense to reverse the position of the water connection.

In this context, I would also like to point out that the position of the input pipes of water in the cracking recipes of chemical plants doesn't correspond with the position of the input pipe of water in the advanced oil processing recipe, despite water being listed in the same position in the actual recipe. This inconsistency also makes it a lot harder to remember the position of water connections.

I realize that this would not be easy to change, since this would make many existing bases stop working. Therefore, now may be a good time to implement the suggestion mentioned in the thread that I linked to in my previous post, since implementing that suggestion would also solve the issue at hand.

I don't want to appear demanding, I am just expressing my opinion. Also, i don't want to appear ungrateful for the 0.15 patch, because the exact opposite is the case.

Klonan wrote: Then adapt to the new recipe? You don't complain that iron-gear wheels don't take the same ingredients as copper-cable,
The logistical challenge is part of the gameplay, and the variation in recipes and processes it what makes it all fun

Simplifying it won't make you design something more interesting, interesting things happen when you apply limitations

I'm not asking for the recipe to be simplified, I'm asking for the location of the inputs to change, for it to be made more convenient.

If the water input was changed to be on the same side for both recipes, then, when I wanted to switch recipes, I could use combinators to shut off the oil flow, turn on a pump that pumps the leftover fluid from the pipes into a storage tank, detect what type of fluid it is and recycle it back into the correct storage, and shunt heavy oil into the refineries.

The way it is now, I would have to pump water out of the pipes, build storage tanks for water, ensure that the water in the tanks actually gets used, then move onto the above, replacing water, pumping out crude oil and shunting in water, pumping out water and shunting in heavy oil, ect.

The first scenario allows me to adapt my existing storage infrastructure to the new task. The second, requires building new, essentially useless, infrastructure to store water of all thing. This is not a more challenging scenario, not more intellectually stimulating, it's just annoying. There is a difference.

There are a lot of suggestions around changing the inputs of liquid fabrication.

Added to viewtopic.php?f=80&t=15472 Swap input for fluids / Automatic input selection for fluids
See also viewtopic.php?f=80&t=37517 Blueprint-Mirroring, BP-Shifting, -Programming, -Iteration, -Editing, Ornaments and Recursion


My current idea for this: There is a new science to research (e.g. Symmetry) and with that (or a side-path of this basic research) such unsymmetrical entities can change their inputs, if possible. Including vertical/horizontal flip as good as possible (not everything is flip-able, it should warn/mark about not flip-able entities).