|
Turbofuel has to be found in hdd research right? I have had no luck finding it and I have got a ton of hdds.
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 20:45
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
In my most recent new save, it took ~5 hours to get to coal and get ~16 coal generators set up, with using solid biofuel almost exclusively, produced from processing alien carapace and organs from my many "explore while waiting for stuff to fill up" excursions. Didn't harvest any leaves or wood at all. I see some people saying they sit at the craft bench and manually craft stuff but I can't imagine doing that. The point of a factory game is to automate as much as possible; not to be a living assembly machine. At the start, I choose to skip onboarding, loot some crash sites and then when I get to assemblers, I manually craft a few rotors and that's about it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 21:00
|
|
|
boxen posted:Finally built a big (for me) turbofuel setup in the NE desert. I'm expecting I'll have to tear chunks of that down and rebuild it after the new update, I haven't seen anything exactly but are they redoing turbofuel production? Turbofuel isn't changing. But the change to powerplants consuming 100% fuel at all times will I think be the most dangerous for turbofuel. The nature of it means that when people build turbofuel power they generally build it big, and that means the plant frequently hasn't been stressed to max power output. My to-do list before the update is going around to all my power plants and re-calculating every part of the fuel production, to make sure they won't run dry. Since you never draw 100% power in practice, I was ok approximating the results a bit -- like if coal production was 240, and the turbofuel generators might theoretically use 245 max, it was good enough. Buffers in the system would handle it. Not anymore. Usually I tried to aim in the other direction and have a bit more supply than demand, but I'm not positive. Gotta take notes and work it out on paper. So far I found that my 3GW compact coal plant had a bunch of generators not working, apparently with bugged water pipes. Water in the pipes, extractors full, no head lift warnings... and no water in the generators. Deleting and replacing the pipes turned them on. Also the whole thing is running under-spec because I forgot to go back and bang in more power crystals after I built it. Producing 320 compact coal, only using 286, so I can OC 8 or 10 generators. priznat posted:Turbofuel has to be found in hdd research right? I have had no luck finding it and I have got a ton of hdds. You need to get compact coal from a HDD first, then there are 2 possible turbofuel recipes. HDD recipes don't show up without having the ingredient materials unlocked.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 21:11
|
|
|
I would like to have a robot mower like a giant roomba that just harvests leaves/wood and then returns to drop off when full. You could stake out an area using the beacons.
|
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 21:12
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Turbofuel isn't changing. But the change to powerplants consuming 100% fuel at all times will I think be the most dangerous for turbofuel. The nature of it means that when people build turbofuel power they generally build it big, and that means the plant frequently hasn't been stressed to max power output. I think when I set up my turbofuel originally, I figured out how much coal I could have coming in from the one node in the area with a mk3 miner, and figured out how much oil that would take to run it at full bore, and that's how I figured out how many refineries and assemblers I'd need. This meant that my power usage is a little spikey as parts of that plant kick on and off, but I have enough extra that it didn't matter. The way I left it, it's capable of generating waaay more turbofuel than it can use (I never finished putting in all the generators). So, unless I'm misunderstanding how things work (very possible), the generators going full-bore all the time shouldn't impact me that much, I just might want to not overclock them. I guess I might want to redo my power grid to take advantage of the new things there, though. Edit: Has there been any talk of being able to use turbofuel in the jetpack? Screw belted biofuel, I want a turbo jetpack. boxen fucked around with this message at 21:38 on Mar 9, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 9, 2021 21:31
|
|
|
Having to go out and source biofuel encourages exploration and going around the world. It’s a good thing
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 00:14
|
|
|
TK-42-1 posted:Having to go out and source biofuel encourages exploration and going around the world. It’s a good thing The only thing that I hate about biofuel is going out exploring and the entire loving ecosystem turns against me. None of the wildlife gives a poo poo about each other, but hoo boy it'll chase you halfway across the damned map. I'm wondering if all the wildlife is cooperatively dickish as a purposeful design decision so you don't feel bad about strip-mining the planet.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 00:41
|
|
|
Power is where Satisfactory currently has the most concentrated flaws. The blackout system is a cool idea for a problem that has to be managed by the player, but for a solution to exist the player either needs the ability to easily overprovision power supplies (as in Factorio or DSP) or the ability to monitor and manage power consumption via an automation system (as in Factorio or Oxygen Not Included). Accumulators will help smooth things out between base and peak load, but that's still just a reduction in the severity of the problem. Biomass burners really should have a belt input. I'd say that the (generalized) fundamental rule of factoriolikes is that tedium should always be the result of the player not automating rather than the game being arbitrary about what can and can't be automated. If there needs to be more incentive to rush coal then it's an argument to make coal more powerful/convenient than it is right now. To be clear, I think manually chainsawing a forest for biomass is acceptable (although a Ferngully-esque forest grinder vehicle would be welcome even if unnecessary) but there's no reason the player shouldn't be able to set up a single drop-off point for biomass instead of needing to manually feed each machine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 00:42
|
|
|
I agree that it takes way too long to get coal power. I'd be happier if it were like the second or third thing you could unlock. The game really has way too many forced time sinks when stuff like building a factory or a railroad can take hours even with buildings going up instantly
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 00:54
|
|
|
boxen posted:Edit: Has there been any talk of being able to use turbofuel in the jetpack? Screw belted biofuel, I want a turbo jetpack. It's been requested many times and is on the list. The equipment / upgrades system is limited and unfinished, so I think it's a question of when they go do a pass to re-do the whole thing properly. Jetpack can only use one type of fuel, 1 parachute drops you like a rock, gas mask doesn't work while you're in the car, etc. The single equipment slot is a hard limit at the moment, for reasons that mostly sum up as "hasty bodge job". (Personally, I really want turbofuel to unlock a nitrous boost in the cars. You boys like mexico? Yeeeeeehaw!) Microcline posted:I'd say that the (generalized) fundamental rule of factoriolikes is that tedium should always be the result of the player not automating rather than the game being arbitrary about what can and can't be automated. But Factorio also starts you out limited in what you can and can't automate. The part where you don't have conveyors isn't even skippable. You tech up into full automation in 20 minutes, but the entire game of Factorio moves about 10 times faster. Satisfactory is sloooooooow.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
boxen posted:Edit: Has there been any talk of being able to use turbofuel in the jetpack? Screw belted biofuel, I want a turbo jetpack. Been brought up plenty of times and addressed in Q&A videos, the devs have said that in the current state of the game it's largely a UI issue. Things like vehicles and biomass burners can accept a number of different fuel sources since you're feeding them directly, but there's no way currently to set your jetpack to prioritize packaged turbofuel in your inventory instead of packaged fuel. The way they talk there also seems to be a balance aspect to it, where they don't necessarily want players reaching the height that a turbofuel jetpack would allow that easily. The first point is fair since it's still EA and limitations of the interface can be expected to change, the balance aspect seems irrelevant since turbofuel is already a late game thing and since you can already launch yourself into the skybox as soon as you unlock hypertubes. By that point you're already more or less unlimited in where you can go.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 01:44
|
|
|
I would really like smart splitters to be available sooner, especially for overflow to sink stuff.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 01:46
|
|
|
Klyith posted:Turbofuel isn't changing. But the change to powerplants consuming 100% fuel at all times will I think be the most dangerous for turbofuel. The nature of it means that when people build turbofuel power they generally build it big, and that means the plant frequently hasn't been stressed to max power output. Is that going to gently caress up my goal generators? because some of my coal generators are sharing coal with another facility that's making other poo poo priznat posted:I would like to have a robot mower like a giant roomba that just harvests leaves/wood and then returns to drop off when full. You could stake out an area using the beacons. same TK-42-1 posted:Having to go out and source biofuel encourages exploration and going around the world. It’s a good thing Not really for me, I explore in order to find a new node, and once I have easier modes of transportation, then I'll go out and explore
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 01:51
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:Is that going to gently caress up my goal generators? because some of my coal generators are sharing coal with another facility that's making other poo poo probably, unless the powerplants are already near 100% capacity or they're just disposing of overflow from your factory
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 02:10
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:Is that going to gently caress up my goal generators? because some of my coal generators are sharing coal with another facility that's making other poo poo If for example your coal production was 120 and you had 8 generators, and were relying on the gens to not always use all 120 coal in order for the other facility to get a share, then yes. Now the generators will consume their max rate (15 coal/min each) all the time. Easy solution is to overclock the coal miner, shove slugs in there until you produce enough for the generators and the other facility. Overclocking miners to get more coal to support more powerplants easily pays for the extra power the miner consumes.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 02:32
|
|
|
Microcline posted:To be clear, I think manually chainsawing a forest for biomass is acceptable (although a Ferngully-esque forest grinder vehicle would be welcome even if unnecessary) but there's no reason the player shouldn't be able to set up a single drop-off point for biomass instead of needing to manually feed each machine. All I want is something to let me blow up those goddamn giant stone trees. Also poison towers, gently caress those things too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 02:37
|
|
|
Klyith posted:If for example your coal production was 120 and you had 8 generators, and were relying on the gens to not always use all 120 coal in order for the other facility to get a share, then yes. Now the generators will consume their max rate (15 coal/min each) all the time. The coal miner is already overclocked lol fug.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 03:27
|
|
|
GreenBuckanneer posted:The coal miner is already overclocked lol Welp! If you're using coal for other things than power though, you must be pretty close to getting Mk2 Miners. Those have double the production rate. (If this is already an OCed Mk2 miner, then it just might be time to venture forth and find more coal. Coal is the easiest thing to get back to your base though. An autopilot tractor isn't much work to set up, and the coal is fuel for the tractor.)
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 04:26
|
|
|
You could force a certain percentage of a coal belt to go to your generators using a series of splitters and mergers. Using the previous example of 120 units of coal you could split that into 2 belts of 60 and each of those into 2 belts of 30 giving you 4x 30 coal per minute belts. Combining 3 of those belts would give you exactly enough coal to run 6 generators and the remaining belt would give you 30 coal per minute to smelt with. At the end of the day though setups that relied on burning excess fuel caused by generators not running at a constant %100 consumption just aren't going to work anymore. This is why I just start a new save with every major update. Going northern forest this time, I wonder how many times I'll fall to my death trying to build a base on the edge of the Grand Canyon without any fall protection? NoEyedSquareGuy posted:DSP upped the stakes and made the player a walking biomass burner. Between DSP and Valheim I can't begin to tell you how ready I am to play a game where your character doesn't constantly run out of energy/stamina at the worst time possible.
|
|
#
?
Mar 10, 2021 13:33
|
|
|
Why are some alternate recipes worse than the originals? For example: high speed connectors. Is there a use for that alternate recipe that im missing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 08:32
|
|
|
ZombieCrew posted:Why are some alternate recipes worse than the originals? For example: high speed connectors. Is there a use for that alternate recipe that im missing? The primary recipe for HSC: 56 quickwire + 10 cable + 1 circuit board => 1 high-speed connector 210 quickwire/min + 37.5 cable/min + 3.75 circuit boards/min => 3.75 high-speed connectors/min The alt recipe: 60 quickwire + 25 silica + 2 circuit board => 2 high-speed connector 90 quickwire/min + 37.5 silica/min + 3 circuit boards/min => 3 high-speed connectors/min Yes the alt is slower, but it also uses much less quickwire, and/or forgoes the cable. The alt only uses 30 quickwire per HSC, versus the primary's 56 per.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 08:47
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 15:32
|
|
|
ZombieCrew posted:Why are some alternate recipes worse than the originals? For example: high speed connectors. Is there a use for that alternate recipe that im missing? Every alt recipe is in some way better than the original. For most of them you get: a. more output per machine b. less resource costs per item c. or both Most people don't care as much about output per machine -- you can always build two machines instead of one. The silicon HS connector is one of those B types, as nielsm showed it uses a lot less materials per HS connector. Sometimes the "cost" of the type C alternates is that one of the inputs is a higher-tier item than the previous inputs. Some of those, that cost isn't worth paying. For example, there's a number of alternates that use crystal oscillators as an input. If you do the math they all have vastly lower input materials than the base recipe. But crystal oscillators themselves are quite a pain to produce in bulk quantities, so the labor cost is a ton higher (plus quartz isn't exactly the most common thing in the world).
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 16:22
|
|
|
Or the weird recipes that add plastic to get extra iron ingots or similar. Like, I *could* use my plastic to make more of the most common resource in the game, but no thanks.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 16:38
|
|
|
Or the ones that use biomass, those are really strange.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 17:23
|
|
|
For many alternates the benefit is in requiring different materials. Circuit boards are a good example - there's an alternate that uses quickwire instead of copper and another that uses silica instead of plastic, so you can fit your circuit board factories to what the local resources are. You could also look at the alternate rotors that use steel and copper wires, which are the same resources that stators require, so your motor factories only need the two inputs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 17:32
|
|
|
Mayveena posted:Or the ones that use biomass, those are really strange. Peachfart posted:Or the weird recipes that add plastic to get extra iron ingots or similar. Like, I *could* use my plastic to make more of the most common resource in the game, but no thanks. Yeah there's that, but also another thing: any alternate that moves production up into a bigger, more complex machine is one that I generally look at unfavorably. Laying out a bunch of assemblers takes like 4 times as long as laying out constructors, just from belt work. You better give me a really good deal to make that worth it. The plastic plates just aren't a good deal by that metric. Fused wire is though.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 18:03
|
|
|
Tenebrais posted:For many alternates the benefit is in requiring different materials. Circuit boards are a good example - there's an alternate that uses quickwire instead of copper and another that uses silica instead of plastic, so you can fit your circuit board factories to what the local resources are. You could also look at the alternate rotors that use steel and copper wires, which are the same resources that stators require, so your motor factories only need the two inputs. drat I NEED that rotor alt if I don’t have it, I have gotten to the point where I need a poo poo ton of motors and had devoted my factories that built stators in the past to steel for heavy modular frames. That sounds like an excellent plan for a motor factory in the SW where there are a ton of impure iron and a pure coal node.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2021 18:55
|
|
|
Peachfart posted:Or the weird recipes that add plastic to get extra iron ingots or similar. Like, I *could* use my plastic to make more of the most common resource in the game, but no thanks. Honestly I like coated iron plate because it just vomits out iron plates for a bit of plastic. 75/min for one machine compared to 20/min of the normal one. I feel 3.5x speed and 1.5x iron multiplier is worth upgrading a machine tier and adding an extra resource. The coated steel plate on other hand isn't so great. I mean maybe if you're going for full efficiency using various alternates to get a better iron ore-> iron ingot -> steel ingot -> iron plate ratios but...really it's a game with infinite resources and it's not worth going through that many steps of diluting your iron unless you're going for gimmick builds. Though one thing the other alternates do let you do is do gimmick builds. Do what you want, when you want. gently caress the efficiency police!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 00:40
|
|
|
I do feel that dismissing bugs as «just» an UI issue shows that the devs aren’t really in sync with the players. We want it fixed, not excuses, and how the hell can «the last parachute technically doesn’t exist» be a bug that stays unfixed in your bug tracker for over a year? Wube would never have accepted that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 12:38
|
|
|
ymgve posted:I do feel that dismissing bugs as «just» an UI issue shows that the devs aren’t really in sync with the players. We want it fixed, not excuses, and how the hell can «the last parachute technically doesn’t exist» be a bug that stays unfixed in your bug tracker for over a year? It’s Early Access  Gotta give them some kind of a break.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:05
|
|
|
ymgve posted:I do feel that dismissing bugs as «just» an UI issue shows that the devs aren’t really in sync with the players. We want it fixed, not excuses, and how the hell can «the last parachute technically doesn’t exist» be a bug that stays unfixed in your bug tracker for over a year? The 1 parachute thing isn't really a UI bug though: the game is removing a parachute when you press space, but now you have no parachutes equipped so you don't get a parachute. The correct fix would be to make parachutes do the -1 to the stack after using it. Very simple in concept, but maybe not so simple in execution if the code was all made assuming a normal "-1 ammo -> fire gun" path. They've said equipment in general needs some big behind-the-scenes rework, and that's a very good reason not to bother fixing anything. You don't spend time fixing code that you're gonna throw away. ymgve posted:Wube would never have accepted that. If Wube spend time fixing minor bugs in code areas that later got thrown out and replaced, that explains why it took them 7 years to make Factorio. Factorio is great and all, but that game should not have needed 7 years of dev.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 16:24
|
|
|
Klyith posted:
No, they could have easily made 0.16 the 1.0 release, but they didn't feel it was polished enough. It took them 7 years because they wanted the 1.0 release to be a great game, and they nailed it. Wube is one of the best game development teams around.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:01
|
|
|
necrotic posted:No, they could have easily made 0.16 the 1.0 release, but they didn't feel it was polished enough. It took them 7 years because they wanted the 1.0 release to be a great game, and they nailed it. When you're done simping, can you acknowledge that for anyone else waiting THAT LONG after your game is playable to call it "finished" would be considered failure? Factorio is a decent game and gets credit for pushing the genre, but it's also mired in lackluster visuals and an iffy interface. Considering how long they were "in development", it's a little surprising that they didn't include any of the improvements that were introduced to the genre before they declared themselves "released". No game is perfect, but games still in active development get some extra room to be imperfect. And I say "active development" and not "Early Access" because a game can be in "Early Access" and fully feature-complete. Yes, I am looking at Dyson Sphere Program (which I also love to death) on that one as an example, because they are in the phase of polishing and perfecting and not actively developing features. Satisfactory is still actively developing features, they've said that some things (equipment, WIP items, story) are going to get huge reworks (similar to the way fluids did and power is about to get) or are still incomplete. They get space to do that without too much bitching. tl;dr If you don't like a game because it's still rough when it's in Early Access, don't play games until they're released. You'll make us all happy.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 18:48
|
|
|
Cobbsprite posted:they didn't include any of the improvements that were introduced to the genre before they declared themselves "released". What 'improvements'? e. Factorio also doesn't require hours of grinding before basic power automation is achieved. Ambaire fucked around with this message at 19:39 on Mar 12, 2021 |
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 19:36
|
|
|
Cobbsprite posted:When you're done simping, can you acknowledge that for anyone else waiting THAT LONG after your game is playable to call it "finished" would be considered failure? Factorio is a decent game and gets credit for pushing the genre, but it's also mired in lackluster visuals and an iffy interface. Considering how long they were "in development", it's a little surprising that they didn't include any of the improvements that were introduced to the genre before they declared themselves "released". Wow, using 'simping' and having a terrible opinion all in one fabulous post
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 20:19
|
|
|
what the hell are you doing so wrong that it takes you hours of grinding to get to loving coal power lmao
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 20:31
|
|
|
necrotic posted:No, they could have easily made 0.16 the 1.0 release, but they didn't feel it was polished enough. It took them 7 years because they wanted the 1.0 release to be a great game, and they nailed it. Sure, but again, 7 years. Look at this no free lunch here: Factorio blog posted:It's been over 4 years since we planned the infamous GUI update. If all goes well, next week the game will get the last big GUI update for 1.0. While the state of the GUI is not close to our crazy plans we recently had for the GUI, it's above what we initially planned 4 years ago. Like, I'm not saying it's bad that Factorio was made by meticulous perfectionists who spent 4 years executing a GUI update roadmap. Factorio is still the most complicated example of the genre, and it only works because they paid so much attention to detail. That's great. But there are tradeoffs to this, and one of them is that you have to keep your team small, and that means you have to keep your scope limited. Wube, for most of its life, was a half-dozen programmers and 1 artist. That works when you're making Factorio; when you want a game that looks like Satisfactory then you need a bunch of programmers and a bunch of artists. Now you can't spend 7 years constructing your game with a pair of tweezers because you have twice the staff to pay. Given that, there are three answers: • make your game smaller and less interesting: parachutes are bugged, so fix them instead of making a jetpack. no wait jetpacks need multiple fuels, don't make a electro zipline gizmo. • let some bugs and imperfect work ride, particularly when you have their sections of the game on the roadmap for a full rebuild, rather than waste effort in an inefficient manner • go bankrupt with an unfinished game Those are the options. I like #2.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 21:29
|
|
|
Cobbsprite posted:When you're done simping, can you acknowledge that for anyone else waiting THAT LONG after your game is playable to call it "finished" would be considered failure? Factorio is a decent game and gets credit for pushing the genre, but it's also mired in lackluster visuals and an iffy interface. Considering how long they were "in development", it's a little surprising that they didn't include any of the improvements that were introduced to the genre before they declared themselves "released". lmao Klyith posted:Sure, but again, 7 years. Look at this no free lunch here: i didn't mean to imply Coffee stain should follow the same approach Factorio did. I was disputing quote:If Wube spend time fixing minor bugs in code areas that later got thrown out and replaced, that explains why it took them 7 years to make Factorio. because that's not why it took them 7 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 23:39
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 18:25 |
|
|
Factorio (and now DSP) have an incredibly rapid sequence of Problem is acknowledged by the community -> Problem is acknowledged by the developers -> A solution is planned by the developers -> A solution is implemented by the developers Like in DSP's case, interstellar logistics controls, chain deletion, and upgrade-in-place were added two weeks after release and the devs have said they're actively working on blueprints. Meanwhile, the core problems I have with Satisfactory are the same core problems I had when the game was released two years ago. The fundamental problem is that setting down and connecting buildings is tedious and takes an order of magnitude longer than comparable games, and if the core, micro-level gameplay of a game is tedious, then everything else that gets added is at best turd-polishing. If I had to rank my next biggest problems it'd be 1. Inventory bloat (or more specifically, no way to manage the increasing number of items the player is required to carry as the game progresses) 2. Player equipment management (goes with #1) 3. Power 4. Existing solutions are underwhelming (overclocking doesn't solve the problem it's intended to fix, hypertubes (without exploiting glitches) are too slow to act as a reward for setting them up, the map is missing most of the required functionality) 5. Poor communication of what machines are building/storing These are all things that I would address before adding gizmos like the zipline that don't solve existing problems with the game. Contrary to what has been implied, adding more content makes it more complicated, not less, to solve issues with the core gameplay.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2021 23:49
|
|