kovarex

Originally posted by mensabaer

TL; DR: Non-linear research value falloff curve could further incentivize speed-optimized building and deincentivize horizontal scaling

I don't think this was mentioned in the FFF but I thing a non-linear research falloff would be cool - incentivizing ASAP delivery of science packs even further by not only decreasing value over time but also eg. adding an increased bonus above eg. 70% or so (a percentage that is deemed reasonably achieveable with normal efforts)

Think 70% is the "target" reseach value of 1, below, it scales linearly (to not punish slower/inexperienced players too much) whilst above scaling exponentially to eg. 3 research value at 100% (which is impossible to achieve but deliberately lacks a cut-off point, which could be a fun challenge to push towards 100% as much as possible whilst also feeling more rewarding).

Reasoning is that this would introduce a challenge of time-dependend vertical scaling which is not as easily substituted by brute-h...

Read more

Originally posted by Erfar

how modifiable are spoiledge? Is it in theory possible to make scince pack-downgrade-spoiledge? sol if you not use your space science it will slowly turn into yellow, then to blue then green and then you find that you could get all your red science just by spoiling space science?

Originally posted by pdelvo

I wonder how its going to work with the inventory. Im guessing spoilable things wont stack

Originally posted by CosmicNuanceLadder

Initial reaction was that I hated it. I've always disliked the notion of growing things in Factorio, as I feel that it obfuscates the timescale of the game. If you can grow trees in seconds with speed modules, does that still feel immersive...?

By the end of the FFF, I was sold. It's totally worth the new spoilage mechanic imposing new limitations on the factory. I'd never thought of that and yet it seems so obvious—getting an item from point A to point B in a given time immediately feels like a fundamental hurdle we were always supposed to overcome.

Gleba looks like a fantastic logistic challenge, as does Fulgora with its recycling mechanics. Vulcanus looks a bit vanilla in comparison at this point.

Originally posted by WerewolfNo890

I suspect the same SPM megabases will be possible as it will be done with fewer machines that have higher throughput at high quality. The question is more about can we go higher or not.

Originally posted by TheGuyWithTheSeal

You don't really need to update how spoiled every item is every tick. Most of the math can be done just by knowing when the item was created.

Only tricky part is knowing when an item has spoilt completly. Here i can see 2 sollutions:

• Priority queue of all spoilable items sorted by how much time they have left. Only the front of the queue has to be checked every tick. Insertion can be costly.

• Not doing any math when the item spoils, instead checking for spoilage when it's interacted with (processed, displayed, etc.). Probably requires more code changes (but it's pretty much what was done already for quality). Maybe breaks current production statistics logic.

Originally posted by imacomputr

This is the first FFF that has me a little apprehensive. My preferred playstyle is to build at massive scale in nice neat lines, and it looks like Fulgora is antithetical to both goals. Constraints like limited space and limited resources (or managing consumption of scrap-harvested resources) I find more tedious than fun. I recognize I'm probably not the majority in this, and I'm willing to be proven wrong.

That said, the new building types, the aesthetics, and the general bar for quality are all amazing as always.

Originally posted by Specific-Level-4541

Maybe alt-mode won’t toggle until after the player releases the key?

Originally posted by 19wolf

so we can actually finish everything in time

In time for when?!

Originally posted by buyutec

Yes but you could do that in 1.1 as well. What I’d want is, after hitting, say 100spm for all sciences, increasing only the red science production to 200 to be useful so I get some benefits before I increase all else to 200.

Thanks for the answer!

Originally posted by cube1234567890

How consistently will we have to name train stops? Will we have the ability to provide a signal to a train stop to determine its purpose, such as a positive value for an item signal making it a "pickup" station and a negative value making it a "dropoff" station? It's how I imagine you'd be able to make stops that want or supply different items without enforcing a naming convention from on high. Maybe we want Train stop is full of bees to supply our iron :3

That way you could use some clever circuitry to request different trains too...

Originally posted by Steeljaw72

I am very curious to see what scale you think the new bases are going to be in 2.0. I have found that scale is something the community struggles with when discussing the game. Some players think 100 trains on a rail network is huge while others would think 1k trains is barely entering the mid game.

In my modular train bases, 1.5-3k trains is pretty normal. In my centralized bases, 1-1.5k is not unheard of.

Just from everything that has been said in the FFF, it sounds like you (the devs) expect bases to be way larger than what we are doing now. How many trains do you expect we will use at megabase level in 2.0? What size are your bases now (in 1.1) and how large are they in the current 2.0 build?

Originally posted by Ekgladiator

Elevated rails..... Is there a fff I can read more about this because it sounds interesting 🤔

Originally posted by buyutec

Did you slowly build up to 10K or planned for it? My biggest gripe with 1.0 is that you hit a certain SPM and you can't slowly increase from there (as increasing production of only 1 science is not useful), you have to plan the entire thing to hit a higher SPM. Does that change in 2.0?

Originally posted by Fisherman_56

Were you considering integrating purely visual mods into base game?

Disco Science and Bullet Trails, while not changing anything gameplay-wise, make Labs and Gun Turrets look so much better.

Originally posted by subjectivelyimproved

Are you planning to precalculate the routes for trains as part of building rails and scheduling trains, instead of pathfinding on-the-spot?

Or are you referring to collision checks?

Consider me teased either way

Originally posted by JimmyDean82

600 trains was ages ago for me. And my base is only 1/5th done. Think I’m at almost 2k trains.

Originally posted by Professional_Goat185

This implies that the overall train traffic gets increased a lot, so the quality of intersections and the train network as a whole stops being just theoretical problem

uh, it definitely is not a theoretical problem now, with megabases people are building.

Also does that mean that the expansion will require significantly bigger production than vanilla, or are those (and belt/inserter) changes for sake of the mods ?

Originally posted by captainserafinowicz

Oh My God trains in 2.0 are gonna be so much fun to use

Originally posted by BengiPrimeLOL

I don't know if Factorio actually uses it, but there's a system called symantic versioning that is often used and very useful in software, and even when it's not formally used, the fundamental principles are loosely adhered to. Simply, symver says you have 3 basic numbers in your versioning, XX.YY.ZZ (ie 1.2.73) that are defined as such, with possible implications for a game like factorio:

XX - Backward Incompatible Features. major changes _that break previous compatibility_. Changes like this would likely see mods break completely, saves may not carry over or require big conversions that may break some aspects of the save.

YY - New, Backward Compatible Features. minor changes or feature additions that do not break any backward compatibility. Mods would likely work, but mod makers may want to add bits to their mods to tie into new features. Save files would likely be safe.

ZZ - Minor bug fixes. Generally no new features, mods & saves would likely...

Read more