Factorio Forums

see https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=18&t=950

I suggest some changes in calculation. Not very important, but maybe something for modding and finetuning the game (I think I would suggest some small changes heres at some time).

Items:
- like for research a number of "timeslots", thats needed to produce that item
- a hardness
Factories, Furnaces:
- The time which is needed for one timeslot
- The number of parallel timeslots
- a hardness

Why? I need first 2 examples, then I explain

Example 1:

Iron-ore : timeslots: 1
Stones: timeslots: 2, hardness: 0.95
Furnace: slot-time: 1.4s, parallel-slots: 1, hardness: 1
Will produce one iron-ore in 1.4 secs and a stone in 1.66 secs.

For the stones, this is calculated: Stones are 0.95 hard, but the Furnace is 1. So, for every timeslot, this is 0.05 times faster than calculated:
2 * 1.4s - 2 * 1.4s * 0.05 = 2.66 secs.

Many other ideas, but in general I would say, that the the needed time is a multiple of the slot-time, and the slot time may differ for the combination of item vs. furnace/factory.

--------
Example 2:

science-pack-3: timeslots: 20, hardness: 1
factory-2: slot-time: 1s, parallel-slots: 1, hardness: 1
factory-verybig-but-slow: slot-time: 10, parallel-slots: 20, hardness: 1

This means the following: The science-pack needs 20 secs to be build in factory-2, but only 10 secs in factory-verybig-but-slow, because it has 20 slots and all slots can be finished in one slot-time.

But when you try to use factory-verybig-but-slow for such an item:

diamond: timeslots: 1, hardness: 6

This means, that it takes 50 secs in factory-verybig-but-slow and only 6 secs in factory-2.

factory-for-hard-stuff: slot-time: 10, parallel-slots: 1, hardness: 10

Diamonds need here 4 secs. Copper-wire needs still 1 sec. Maybe this is not completely thought through.

------

I think it's clear what I want to say, but for completness:
- There could be factories, which will be only fast for very hard stuff, like diamonds, others will only be fast for soft stuff
- There are factories, which are good in producing very big things, others in producing small.
- of course there will be all-rounders, but if you want to produce faster this is what's needed.
- this fits also into perfectly into the rest of the game where small parts are assembled toghether.
- maybe this model is also an idea for research, steam-furnace and some other items, so the idea must be learned only once.

I though that research works that way already.. It has a number of units that each takes particular resources and time.

It does not sound bad. But production is way more complex than the current research (where you just hit a button)
It would need a way how "complex" and "long" recipes could be distinguished from each other at glance.
Computing and remembering those would be painful.

It also doesn't make that much sense in the current context, where the recipe on a machine is fixed until you manually change it.
(Except for furnaces, that tend to switch over to steel when my iron supply weakens, due to my poor smelting layout)

MF- wrote:I though that research works that way already.. It has a number of units that each takes particular resources and time.

The research was also my base-idea for this suggestion. I would like to have all things working in the same way, this makes it easier to understand.
I suggest an agile manner. Maybe a simple version implements just the slots and some special rules. When the principle works, it can be advanced with more complicated stuff. For example it could be an idea, that you can make faster production by making more waste (randomly it needs more items for production or outputs unneeded stuff - see recycler thread). Or make more energy efficient factories. When fully researched, the factories need only half the energy or so... many ideas...

Computing and remembering those would be painful.

I think this is it currently also. And there is no way to find that out by self.

It also doesn't make that much sense in the current context, where the recipe on a machine is fixed until you manually change it.
(Except for furnaces, that tend to switch over to steel when my iron supply weakens, due to my poor smelting layout)

Good point. I think this is also some kind of learning process and belongs to the game.

My most important points are:
- It must be clear, how it is calculated, so you can make your theoretical calculations yourself.
- It's some kind of strategy: Do you make pure mass-production, only one more or less allrounder-factory for all the stuff or are you going to specialize, make everything more efficient, faster, smaller, "rounder".
- If you don't care that all, you can build just one time of factory and make all with it. Will be also fine and maybe you learn the next time how to make it different.

ssilk wrote: I think this is it currently also. And there is no way to find that out by self.

I mean - computing and remembering which assembling machine is best for each recipe.

All I have to figure out is a good ratio of individual assembling machines (Or do what I did - add one to the subsystem that does not keep up from time to time)

MF- wrote:

ssilk wrote: I think this is it currently also. And there is no way to find that out by self.

I mean - computing and remembering which assembling machine is best for each recipe.

No, nobody could do that and have that all in mind (ok, maybe some). But I think in strategies. You see for example, that a factory is too slow to fit in a process of production. You need a faster one, because you also don't have more space left. But it takes more energy etc. Or you haven't enough energy. So you replace the factories with more energy-efficient ones. Maybe you have factories, which are able to make more production-steps in one, but they are extremely expensive and slow?

Or in other words: Currently you cannot choose. There is only one way to achieve a result. I want some more options and all I need to know is the general direction. The rest will be learned, that's part of the fun.

So I repeat: It's okay to use one type of factory. A one-size-fits-all-approach works well, when you're going into dimensions, where you count with millions. Or you can go more into details, make it more efficient, but this takes of course longer until built up, but maybe it's in the end much faster than the other direction! It doesn't matter what you do, but it's your decision! Gamers like decisions.
And that's a big strategic element which eventually makes much sense, when you try to play factorio in other mods or scenarios.

All I have to figure out is a good ratio of individual assembling machines (Or do what I did - add one to the subsystem that does not keep up from time to time)

Yes. But at some point you know, that for green-potion you need 9-11 factories, 1 copper wire, 1 steel wheel, 1 belt, 1 electric circuit and 5-7 are building green potions. So and so are good layouts etc. But now you are playing against this ugly motherfuc*** and he makes it like you. To win against him, you need to make it different. What now?

Sounds like a good reason. Choices and multiple routes to the same goal are good things.
If it was trivial to make the process better, I wouldn't be willing to not deploy it as early as possible.
I think the idea of providing one-size-fits-all assembly machines will fail if there would be no substantial effort barrier to the perhaps-faster tech.
Like... that would activate only when the whole production line supports <enhancement>