File: file.png (564 KB, 545x575)

564 KB PNG

Had a brain blast
>Notice beavers can build stuff from inside tubeways
>Neat, that means they can do things like build over canyons or up/down cliffs without paths everywhere
>Just made the connection that doing pic related instead of big right angles might mean they can build two sections at a time instead of one
Now to observe and see if more than one beaver can be in the same section

File: Oh! Right!.png (309 KB, 910x628)

309 KB PNG

>>559900195
Actually I'm fuckign retarded, of course they can
Otherwise they wouldn't be able to go past each other in opposite directions

>>559899862 (OP)
Promotion? What for?

>>559900496 →
I'd need a "take evenly" that blocks if one input is drained

File: file.png (230 KB, 540x360)

230 KB PNG

>>559901274
Your supervisor said you've been showing great results in autistically designing inanimate objects and solving abstract problems that don't involve social skills, so upper management has decided to promote you to a position where you solely manage and organise a team of people! You'll clearly do a great job anon, we'll be paying close attention to your performance.

>>559898253 →
"Onboarding" or "tier 0" is just an additional set of tutorial milestones for first-time players, where you unlock buildings and recipes two or three at a time and send of a couple hundred of the base items in the HUB.
If you skip it, you start with a dozen or so recipes and buildings unlocked and enough items to build a small starter base. You've yet to unlock assemblers, so you might still need to handcraft some reinforced iron plates and rotors. Or you find them at crash sites to completely avoid handcrafting non-equipment items.

>>559899862 (OP)
I just want to continue my new run in CoI, but I'm stuck at gay-ass work delivering lumber. Reeeeeee

>>559900195
You can also build an exit to let even more out.

File: file.png (735 KB, 589x845)

735 KB PNG

>>559902145
Or I can wiggle wiggle wiggle wiggle

File: Untitled.jpg (350 KB, 1920x1080)

350 KB JPG

Does this go on forever?

>>559909010
No.
You can build behind it if you make your ship long enough.
(or at least, it used to work that way at some point)

>Fixed datacenter that was consuming 0.09765% more coolant than defined.
Amazing.

File: 1757636927872881 eggman.png (142 KB, 680x626)

142 KB PNG

>>559911804
This is the flavor of autism I come to /egg/ for

File: Desynced.png (5 KB, 435x274)

5 KB PNG

>Desynced
Not looking great, guys.
What's the issue?

>>559889249 →
We need a mod to remedy this.
You need a farm where you breed dinosaurs, then you feed them with much smaller dinosaurs (chickens), then you liquefy the dinosaurs in a blender after which with the help of a hyperbolic time chamber turn the dino juice into oil. Last step is to inject the oil into the ground so that your pumpjacks can retrieve it.

>>559919046
Sounds like pY

>>559919342
Needs more poop and interdimensional gazelle

>>559919046
time travel factory /egg/ where you use technology across time to set up your own resources

>>559918968
Not sure what those reviews pointed out, but it has always been trash. The story is almost non-existent yet even the little bit there is is terrible. Factory automation is awkward, relying almost entirely on COI-style mobile units, only they can collide with each other and get stuck. Combat has four enemy AI settings, with the second hardest still being "biters with no pollution and no expansion", which is also the default and can't be changed halfway in, meaning a chunk of the tech tree ends up worthless. You can pretty much just fast-forward and win, there's no challenge at all except things take a while if you don't scale up.

The main selling point is being able to write behaviour code for your units. They didn't want an outright programming language though so it's using icons and symbols, but it's unintuitive and not well documented. Also, completely unnecessary to beat the game. It can cut down some of the tedium of setting up new mining areas or clearing up enemy nests, but if you did that you wouldn't have a game left to play.

>>559919046
There's actually biofuel with a simpler recipe, just compost the stuff you would've fed to the chickens, and combine the resulting methane gas with oxygen.

Is there a reason to play C.O.I. with world mines not set to unlimited if you don't like asteroid mining?

>>559922454
Not really. Self imposed challenge I guess. Frankly one of the things I like about CoI is it's difficulty customization. I like to build and watch my factory run and not deal with "1000 ways to death spiral".

>>559922454
I can't imagine those running out anyway, you'd have to play for weeks. At which point there'd be nothing to do other than drop asteroids.

>>559922454
World mines are super shit so I never come close to running out since switching asap is always a good idea. Making them unlimited is fine too. It would take thousands of years to run all of them dry so there's little difference.

Contracts even

>>559919046
yeah no that's py.

>>559922454
Mines are for bootstrapping your island only. Contracts are so much better in every way.

i have played coi exactly zero but it's so weird to me that controlled asteroid impacts are a normal thing given the game's tech level otherwise

>>559926367
it's frankly odd considering they could have gone for something like deep sea nodule mineral extraction and whatnot (would have made a hell of a lot more sense as well) but it's an odd game overall

>>559927083
Transporting it by sea from somewhere that has loads of it but isn't very livable is what a lot of the world does when it needs a resource.

>>559928186
but you can do that already, and it's fairly early game tech

>>559926160
Why? Cost seems similar to having to produce the stuff to sell.

>>559926160
>Pay unity and workers to operate a oil rig on the world map
>Resources come out
>Contracts are better in every way
>???

Anon explain. Am I stupid or confused.

>>559929457
>>559929902
Every raw material has at least one "really good" contract for it. Raw materials become so cheap using those contracts because end game manufacturing is really really efficient compared to sending those same workers into oil rigs and overpaying on unity.

File: 20260310165624_1.jpg (1.52 MB, 2560x1440)

1.52 MB JPG

>need more farm space
>starting forestry is on only usable land
>move forestry to far less useful land
>can now just drop a new construction on trees and they simply fall over without getting resources instead of being forced to clearcut an area first
glorious change.

>>559931120
i don't want my workers being thieves that steal my wood though

>>559929902
That unity could be going towards way more useful things like 30% less water usage or less food consumed. Edicts save more resources the higher your population is. The amount of pops and unity needed for a big oil refinery gets insane.

>>559929902
I think he's just bad at explaining it and has a very late-game perspective. There's a hard cap on Unity income, while the other costs: workers, power, maintenance, diesel can all be scaled up almost indefinitely. The unity cost of running a mine at 1x is roughly equivalent to keeping a contract running, but a mine will produce 48/60s (in the case of coal) while a contract brings in 1500/180s. You end up massively overpaying in materials, power, workers and maintenance since you have to produce and export 375 chairs, but you do get a lot more throughput. And the assumption is you're producing chairs anyway, otherwise you wouldn't hit the aforementioned unity income cap. So you just divert a small excess to the contract.

File: file.png (2.83 MB, 1190x983)

2.83 MB PNG

compact bricks

>>559904506 →
You're probably right, but I imagine it would be harder to fully eliminate them from loaded chunks with how dense the map is.

File: Untitled.png (1.93 MB, 1150x846)

1.93 MB PNG

>>559934405
That looks hard to scale up unless you can mirror it?
Here's my starter setup. The ore sorter and gas station are there for convenience right now.
The crushers and bins get replaced by gas kilns and MK2 crushers later on to support 8 MK3 mixers.
Last time I never had enough bricks for pavement so I want to fix that this time by having more than enough with plenty of extra production for bridges and whatever else needs it.
I suppose I could use lifts to make it far more compact but they're pretty pricey.

>>559937632
not meant to scale up

how many groundwater pumps per a reservoir?

>>559938052
iirc the size of the reservoir determines how quickly it fills up, the smallest 15k one can handle 2.5 pumps or so

>>559901004
isn't there some flavor text pointing it out, joking about a large beaver collider or something, or did I hallucinate that?

>>559846904 →
>antivirus going haywire on the exe
>all titeuf's got to say is "it's a false positive guise!", "look up what a false positive is"
should I really just trust him? is there anything I can do to check what's up?

File: file.png (93 KB, 777x131)

93 KB PNG

>>559938490
>the smallest 15k one
oh no

>>559938630
The usual, upload to virustotal and judge by the number of detections. An actual virus gets upwards of 50%, and the detections have real names that do not include "generic" or "heuristic".

>>559939101
Sitting uncomfortably close to 50% at 34/72, but yeah, nearly all of it is just "generic" detections
I've been out of the piracy game too long, I guess

>>559920219
time travel factory /egg/ where you have to take causality into account.
there are no visible surface or sub-surface resources. you need to prospect the ground to find anything.
all the areas you have prospected will be locked in their results.
during the game you can unlock time traveling.
traveling back in time you can now (through various means) deposit resources anywhere you haven't prospected, so as not to change the state of your original timeline.
in short, you can only change stuff that has no influence on anything that was already determined.
you remove a hill to make room to place some more ore for your future civilization? you'll have to recreate the hill surface to keep causality intact.

>>559938883
the jews don't want you to know that rain water is free

File: file.png (46 KB, 329x168)

46 KB PNG

>>559938630
So it would seem

>>559940256
reminds me of a hfy story i once read.
there it was that if you want to find something specific in space or some kind of mineral deposit you ask a specific human.
the human will guide you with absolute certainty to whatever you search for but only if you obey what they say without questioning it.
you have to follow their instructions to a t and not second guess them or check your sensors for traces of those minerals. just follow the instructions and you will find them.
after asking the human how the human knows where to find everything, the answer is that they don't.
the trick is that the human can delude themself into truly believing that their instructions will lead to what the other is searching for and so the universe plays along.
as soon as someone start second guessing or double checking the results (for example by scanning the asteroid even after already hitting the mineral deposit) the universe performs a sanity check and poof, minerals gone.

File: ksnip_20260220-165444.png (599 KB, 1048x780)

599 KB PNG

T minus 1 more week lads

File: screen-87.png (201 KB, 416x400)

201 KB PNG

>>559875158 →
>At least those bad citizens now can't mod in electric trains without buying the DLC
Actually not too far from the truth. Found this in the mod they broke yesterday.

so is CoI good again?

>>559941774
To be fair I found a post from a dev saying modders have the ability to make trains run on electricity so it should be possible. I hope someone does because that sounds incredibly convenient late game.

File: 20260310185611_1.jpg (1.43 MB, 2560x1440)

1.43 MB JPG

Took ages for this new concrete plant to spool up. I think the lift at the end of the second crusher was taking all the manufactured sand away from the output until it eventually filled up and let some get to the second mixer.
>>559934405
all that for one kiln?

>>559942720
Do you not have access to regular sand? I have manufactured sand as a backup but the power draw is pretty nasty.

>>559942974
No worse than crushing quartz into sand. Actual beach sand is absent from most of the max difficulty starts.

File: 20260310191712_1.jpg (1.23 MB, 2560x1440)

1.23 MB JPG

>>559942974
I do but I'd rather leave it for glass when the time comes. The sand isn't very deep either. Rock is a million times more abundant and keeps the complexity of the concrete plant low.
>>559943198
on that note, this is the insane start on the newest map

>>559944081
Never had much fun with these extreme starts, more tedious than challenging. And you still have to migrate later on, because half the buildable area is on top of a resource and there's not enough groundwater or farmland.

>>559944714
The one on apocalypse was pretty fun. The mountain map (hang them high?) Was also really fun once you reached the top. The new version of it looks kinda shit.
I'm doing the second start on the new map because I want a nice relaxing start this time.

File: 467535735.jpg (1.22 MB, 3333x1715)

1.22 MB JPG

gold from the mountain erodes and flows down and into the lake bottom which mixes with dirt

how similar are coal and nuclear powerplants in reality?
couldn't you replace the burner with a pile of uranium, and liquefact the coal for gas and lube and the works

>>559951242
yes a few coal plants are already being retrofitted

File: 1.jpg (1008 KB, 1920x1080)

1008 KB JPG

Second start on the new map is comfy.
I just checked on my last map and it doesn't seem like bridges can support pipes? That's really annoying. Also dump trucks can't use bridges at all? I hope that's a bug.

>>559941268
this reminds me of /x/loa/ mumbo jumbo magic

>>559921717
>Factory automation is awkward, relying almost entirely on COI-style mobile units, only they can collide with each other and get stuck.
You can use drones to get around that, they don't collide. And managing logistics becomes easier with transporters, either separate, or the ones built into beacons.
Medium transporters have enough range to make production clusters with. Range is calculated from each cell of the building, so a 1x1 and a 2x3 buildings can have very different reach.

>>559955674
>dump trucks can't use bridges
Bridge DLC will fix that.

File: 20260310213013_1.jpg (1.35 MB, 2560x1440)

1.35 MB JPG

>turn off partial loads
>diesel starts trending up
wasteful little trucks
I also caught some trying to export from rain collectors and put a fucking stop to that

File: 716490_20260310192414_1.png (632 KB, 1920x1080)

632 KB PNG

I need a fuckload of NOOPs to keep this on time.

>>559956592
one time my trucks were taking water from pumps and putting it back into the liquid dump

why item resistances have a zero slash before a number? for example the turbo belt has 0/50% fore resistance, what do it mean? that his fire resistance percentage will be a randomly number between 0 or 50?

Something really fuckin convenient about the tubeways is that you can just slap down a station at any point you need the beavers to step out from for something, unlike the ziplines which need fiddly bullshit and long paths to set up (which I do enjoy to some degree but does take a long time in weird terrain)
I did just have an idea while typing this that I should have had earlier: immediately build a big circular line all the way around the map as soon as you can, then just branch off it and slap down stations wherever you need afterwards. Damn this shit is OP

File: Untitled.png (215 KB, 337x631)

215 KB PNG

>>559959063
It's split between flat reduction and a % reduction. 0/50% just means belts have 50% resistance to fire with no other bonus.

Now look at my pic.
40/40% means you take 40 less damage from explosives on top of taking 40% less damage too.

>>559959603
Yup. I actually build them underground so they don't get in the way of anything else too. Throw in a power shaft under it for a transport/power combo anywhere on the map. They also make stacked commie blocks super useful because the travel time from the top is reduced to nearly nothing.

>>559959764
so math is like (100 damage - 40%) -40%?

40%/40% fire resistance would return a 100 fire damage as a 45 damage point?

I dont' really like planets in SA.
Wish it was all in a single planet I just had to travel really fucking far to get to, like a continent or something.

Did anything come out of that 'teleport' or gate mod? the one where the engineer was shown coming closer to some boxes and the view changed from one planet to another.

Maybe that way different surfaces could be connected into a single planet.

File: mars-first0.jpg (209 KB, 1920x1080)

209 KB JPG

Mars First Logistics is a good /egg/. It's sort of the death stranding of /eggs/. You make deliveries, build stuff, and getting around gets very technical. You'd think that just because it's a voxel vehicle builder with cute graphics that it wouldn't be a very hard game, but you'd be dead wrong. The offroading in this game is intense. Some earlier game missions involve going over terrain that's basically pits or going on a huge long distance overland expedition.

>>559965882
My gripe is that the editor is kind of ass and the dev doesn't seem to want to fix it. I also wish you could deploy multiple vehicles in solo like you can with multiplayer. Neat game otherwise.

what is the big difference planned with space engineers 2? i only see water being different

>>559965882
Anon, you're supposed to navigate your way around the obstacles, not plow into the rocks or chasms.
At least wait until you have a grappling hook or two. I always have at least one, no matter what vehicle. Helps a lot when you flip over while carrying stuff.
Kinda low-key mad you can't get a hook into the load. I get why you can't, but it's still annoying.

>>559966583
>I also wish you could deploy multiple vehicles in solo like you can with multiplayer.
I feel your pain anon. Linear actuators and/or pistons will save you some sanity.

https://store.steampowered.com/app/1279510/Screw_Drivers/
Newegg laid.

>>559964208
Yes but your math is off. The first 40 is a flat number, not a percentage.

A better example, like say 50 damage into 20/40% defenses would look like:
(50-20)*(100-40) = 30*0.6 = 18

The first number is much more effective against rapid smaller hits, potentially cutting damage down to the minimum value (of 1?), while the percentage works the same predictable way against everything. If you play other games, it's the difference between how defense worked in Torchlight/Arknights vs PoE/Endfield

>>559921717
>gimmick factorio clone that doesn't commit to the gimmick and so just ends up a watered down factorio with a side mechanic you mostly ignore
I feel like this is an all too common story.

>>559980387
>potentially cutting damage down to the minimum value (of 1?)
There is no minimum damage value.

If the flat damage resistance would take the damage to zero or lower, it's instead reduced to a fraction of a point of damage.
https://wiki.factorio.com/Damage#Decrease,_or_%22flat%22_resistance

>>559902637
wiggle wiggle micro micro piece of shit

>>559983427
So there is a minimum value only it's dynamic. As opposed to taking zero damage. Either way the number is low enough to not matter.

>>559983427
>factorio wiki now behind cloudflare captcha
it's time to create an alternative to the world wide web

>>559984916
Captchas protect us from bots :)

>>559984962
may actually be true
just not a fan of that single point of failure

>>559964303
You can just play any of the mods that crunch all of the content onto one planet.

File: 1668824571978788.gif (2.6 MB, 417x250)

2.6 MB GIF

>Space Exploration run
>Early game fucking stinks like ass
>Get to the point that I can consistently fire rockets into space. Honeymoon phase
>Planets are just glorified resource patches. All you do is find one with the least horrible traits and set up delivery cannons to fire shit at your orbital platform
>Interest evaporates immediately. Uninstall and start a new Space Age run

>>559990383
I think that fundamentally, extended Factorio gameplay has only two options: either just more of the same, with everything being a fancy resource patch and recipes all being just longer assembler chains (or reskinned assemblers); or a "campaign" with restrictive puzzle gimmicks forcing you to build gimmick factories along a predefined path with railroaded solutions.

I don't see a way to avoid both of those issues at once.

>>559990657
Neither of those are a problem the first time around. It's just that you've spent a hundred plus hours with the game previously, and now expect a similar dopamine hit from repeating it. It's just not gonna work.

>>559991649
I'm not looking for no dopamine hits. I just wasn't expecting SE to fizzle out as quickly as it did, where other overhaul mods either have the decency to do something creative or jingle some keys over the player's head to keep their attention.

>>559990657
>or a "campaign" with restrictive puzzle gimmicks forcing you to build gimmick factories along a predefined path with railroaded solutions.
That isn't really an issue as long as you aren't going the Cerys route where you're trapped on some hellhole planet until you solve their gimmick.

>>559991876
>I'm not looking for no dopamine hits
Why the fuck wouldn't you be looking for dopamine hits? What he is aluding to was the mindless ill invested pursuing of the same kind of dopamine hits. Not dopamine seeking as such. Seek all the dopamine you want king.

>>559983427
>There is no minimum damage value.
0 is a minimum. While it seems an irrelevant distinction there are some games where having enough resistance to reduce damage into the negatives will outright cause healing,

>>559991876
>That isn't really an issue
It's one of the most widespread criticisims of SA (other than quality being shittily implemented).

>>559994050
While that anon is wrong as written, for flat damage resistance there is indeed no minimum damage value. Other than I suppose the practical limit when you reach maximum int/float precision.
The limit of 0 only applies to the percentage reduction (if you have 100% resistance).

>>559959603
Its very convenient that you don't have limitation to connections either. You can make intersections and merges at will and have paths everywhere. Ziplines are much more limited at that. In busy areas, I build the tubes on top of pathways, so that is a non issue.

I still hate IT breeding though.

>>559995056
>the practical limit when you reach maximum int/float precision
Might as well be lim->0

>>559955674
Now I'm torn between being a real tough guy and playing on the impossible start, or choosing an easier one and having a less stressful experience

>>559994957
I've never seen anyone complain about any kind of "campaign" in SA, unless they're complaining about the complete lack thereof. The inner planets are completely non-linear and don't even demand that you complete them before you fuck off to a different planet, and the only planet that has anything resembling an actual puzzle gimmick is Gleba.

>>559995265
Yeah breeding is easily the main hurdle, technically it's easier to bounce back from a catastrophe since repopulating will go as fast as your pods can support rather than relying on Folktails being able to have kids AND raise them before dying of old age... but then it's even easier reloading a save from before you fucked up so it's Ironteeth who lose out in that argument
Once you've first got a population roughly stable you should only turn on another pod when you're sure food production is good enough

>>559996693
Its just hard to adjust and requires more micromanaging. I think there is a mod to add a limit slider, but I didn't try it.

Their reliance on berries is a issue on early game, on hard maps with hard settings. If you don't manage to build a reserve before the first badtide early game, all the berries on the map can die, sending you in to a death spiral with almost impossible comeback. The berries takes too long to grow from new bushes and you can get another badtide, killing everything again, before you can recover or make any meaningful progress.

>>559990657
Nullius' endgame of utilizing the new life recipes to make old resources is neat. For example you can make lubricant by rendering down oil derived from fish rather than making lubricant chemically with a multi-stage process

Though the final goal of terraforming is just a huge resource sink and that's basically what Factorio is

>>560002506
In a way it's closer to Satisfactory's goals.

>>559996686
There's a good handful of mechanics which exist in SA purely to say "NO, you cannot do things this way, you have to use the INTENDED solution". Shit like surface building restrictions ("no you CANNOT manufacture the planet specific building anywhere except the original planet, you HAVE to set up spaceship routes to bring it everywhere else you want to build!"), rocket capacity restrictions ("no you CANNOT ship in ammo unless you want to waste hundreds of rockets, you WILL build it on-site!"), the extremely railroaded asteroid resistances ("you WILL use the EXACT turret each asteroid type was designed for, because we put a 99% resistance on every other damage type!"), and even small things like preventing a nutrient-positive fish loop on Nauvis or locking cliff explosives behind vulcanus to force you to play with the "puzzle" of building around the cliff obstacles.

>>560002506
In the end it comes down to the flavour you add to the recipes and how you organise the byproducts, loops and alternate recipes to try to make your mod unique. Nullius actually does an excellent job at both, and IMO is probably the best mod all-around in the "add ten thousand recipes" category of expansion mods. But in the end the gameplay is still just "lay out some reskinned assemblers, and route items from A to B so the assemblers can transform them into C which you then route to the next stage".
Bobangel, Seablock, pY, Nullius, SeX etc. all follow the same basic formula. SeX just adds a bunch of extra mechanics with the different planet surfaces and spaceships, which is cool and makes it different, though it's still the exact same factory building at its core if you look past all the flavour like the anon above was complaining about. Nullius adds fewer mechanics and doesn't pretend to be anything more than just a "ten thousand extra recipes" mod, but just tries to weave flavour into its recipe chains and does that pretty well.

>>560002506
There's also the satisfaction of tearing down your bio bootstrap production piece-by-piece as you no longer need dozens of slow-working nanofabricators to keep up with sugar and fatty/amino/nucleic acid needs.

>>560003603
There is no mod yet to remove these railroaded restrictions? That could be interesting, if a bit unbalanced.

>>559996686
Sorting recycled scrap is a puzzle, heat pipes are a puzzle, Vulcanus... looks cool in ads

>>560004812
What a silly take from a silly person.

>>560004681
rocket capacity is very easy, just one variable per item
that vibecoded exotic space industries fork unlocked them to 1K bullets, 500 rockets, etc. Also added a turret using tank shells and a flamethrower using acid, both work in space

the other stuff mods don't want to touch from what I've seen, even overhauls keep the SA planets mostly as-is

>>560003603
>Shit like surface building restrictions ("no you CANNOT manufacture the planet specific building anywhere except the original planet, you HAVE to set up spaceship routes to bring it everywhere else you want to build!")
I've seen these complaints but they typically do not last for very long because of how easy it is to get those buildings into space. And this is actually precisely one of the problems that Space Exploration has, since there is literally no reason to stay on most planets since you can manufacture things anywhere (and as a matter of fact, MUST manufacture things in orbital platforms since most of the shit in that mod requires the space manufacturing building)

>rocket capacity restrictions ("no you CANNOT ship in ammo unless you want to waste hundreds of rockets, you WILL build it on-site!")
This is something I've never actually seen anyone complain about, ever. Ammo in space costs nothing to build and the only reason I can really think of to ship ammo to space is to make tank shells to kill Demolishers. Aside from my general disagreements with that method, you can just ship all of the components up to your platforms and make them in space. You get significantly more ammo to your platforms in significantly fewer launches by

>the extremely railroaded asteroid resistances ("you WILL use the EXACT turret each asteroid type was designed for, because we put a 99% resistance on every other damage type!"),
The only two turrets that don't work on platforms are the one that requires oxygen to work (flamers) and tesla turrets

>and even small things like preventing a nutrient-positive fish loop on Nauvis or locking cliff explosives behind vulcanus to force you to play with the "puzzle" of building around the cliff obstacles.
Most people that aren't friggin retarded won't build near cliffs. If there's a HUGE plot of land on Nauvis and you somehow find yourself building near the one cliff in the middle of nowhere, that's your fault.

CoI is getting so many negative reviews, it's crazy. Wonder if this'll hurt their PR long term

>>559979183
>looks like shit
>EA

not even worth pirating

>>559990383
>keep trying to get back into factorio
>once you've played the game once you know the optimal set up for everything
>no reason to do anything different unless you're doing some challenge run
>quit before ever getting to oil

>>560005239
do tesla turrets actually not work in space or are the asteroids simply immune to electricity because I remember being able to use them in onlyglebs against tungsten asteroids.
Also yeah, I really don't see any of those issues he's raised in my run.

>>560004681
It'd probably be interesting as a curiosity but that's about it. SA was designed with these restrictions in mind, it's inherently build with a puzzle/campaign-like structure and just ripping out the puzzle restrictions is likely to make it worse rather than better. Maybe there are a few exceptions like allowing early cliff explosives for those who hate cliffs and don't care about muh vulcanus progression. But for example asteroid resistances, while a very blatant railroad to force a specific solution, do end up creating more interesting gameplay as you have to design multi-layered ship defense rather than if you could just stack more and more gun turrets for every single ship and ignore every other new turret in SA.

I don't think the campaign-like nature of SA is necessarily a bad thing. It's just different from the much more sandboxy nature of both 1.0 and the type of mods that just drop you into a game, give you a few thousand recipes and technologies, and let you build whatever you want wherever you want as much as you want, as long as you can research through the tech tree.

>>560005007
He's not wrong, these are effectively single-use gimmicks with relatively solveable optimal solutions, that exist purely to "force" you to build a specific type of factory. Same as the gleba spoilage. If anything I think gleba spoilage is by far the most interesting one because it results in a fundamentally different way of building things and basically creates a completely new paradigm of factory building, so as far as "gimmicks" go it's much deeper than the others; fulgora's a distant second and aquilo is by far the shallowest and is just a trivial little spaghetti puzzle.

Let's also not forget here space as one of the surfaces you build on, with all its artificial restrictions like no chests, no bots, no holes in the platform etc., also clearly designed as a specific type of spaghetti puzzle.

>>560005239
>You get significantly more ammo to your platforms in significantly fewer launches by
I went take a shit before I finished writing that and forgot to finish the rest of that statement. You get more in fewer launches by just shooting the components to your platform and crafting them in space. And it doesn't require all that much effort to accommodate that unless you're building a really tiny platform. Point is, I just never really see people complain about it unless they're very specifically trying to cheese demos with tanks instead of red turrets

>>560005897
>He's not wrong
he very much is, and you're an idiot.

What is this Nullius mod everyone is suddenly talking about? Is it actually fun like K2 or is it some overcomplicated, tedious shit for people who base their entire personality off that they make games harder than they need to be?

>>560005848
All asteroids have 100% resistance to fire and electricity specifically, but nothing else. Might have been a modded thing. Tangentially related but I've recently taken to putting artillery cannons on my endgame ships so I have something to do while it's gathering promethium.

>>560006038
>All asteroids have 100% resistance to fire and electricity specifically

>hit space rock with fire
>hit space rock with electricty
>nothing happens

Did people actually expect any different?

File: (you).png (76 KB, 735x651)

76 KB PNG

>>560006010
>stop liking what I don't like because I can't get it

>>560006161
I've never tried it but I wanted to know if it's worth trying. I've put a ton of time into K2 and after that I can't really go back to vanilla so I want to get back into the game, with a new overhaul, so I can play SA.

>>560006262
>I've put a ton of time into K2 and after that I can't really go back to vanilla so I want to get back into the game, with a new overhaul, so I can play SA.
SA is the overhaul silly

File: 1768705317944996.jpg (32 KB, 720x720)

32 KB JPG

>>560006038
>so I have something to do while it's gathering promethium
don't tell me you babysit your promethium farming ships
IF
bitter_eggs < BITTER_EGG_MAX/2
THEN
returnHome()

>>560005239
>I've seen these complaints but they typically do not last for very long because of how easy it is to get those buildings into space.
I don't think it's a problem per se, it's just a symptom of the DLC being campaign-like.

>This is something I've never actually seen anyone complain about, ever
I don't know where you've been but there's been regular discussions here about the retardation of the rocket weight system ever since the DLC's release.

>The only two turrets that don't work on platforms are the one that requires oxygen to work (flamers) and tesla turrets
Your point?

>Most people that aren't friggin retarded won't build near cliffs.
Yes you can build around them, that doesn't in any way disprove that they intentionally restricted the ability to destroy them to force a more puzzle-y gameplay progression.
It was even explicitly mentioned in the Vulcanus FFF, because Vulcanus has that cliff-spam biome. Which in practice doesn't even have much impact because Vulcanus also has a massive empty plot of land at spawn that you can build on and completely ignore the cliff biomes nearby, but the point is the design philosophy - "we'll add a gimmick obstacle, and lock a mcguffin to bypass the obstacle behind some mandatory progression, so the player has to play around the restriction first before being able to then shortcut their way past it once they progress further into the game!". The kind of design philosophy you see in metroidvanias, not in sandbox factory building games.

>>560006010
You sound like a faggot so I'm going to say that it's the most bloated unfun shit ever. Don't bother.

>>560006335
but it hardly changes anything early game. You still do the same basic ass furnace stacks, oil is the same, it's literally the exact same until you leave the planet but getting to that point is a struggle in itself.

>>560006368
Of course not. The artillery cannons are there for when I get bored and have something to do when I click on it while going through surfaces.

>>560006506
Second most bloated

>>560006529
>but it hardly changes anything early game.
Not all overhauls are about changing the earlygame.

>>560006010
It's definitely on the complicated side, the same family of mods as B/A and pY. Easier than pY of course (everything is), IIRC it's of a similar order of magnitude as B/A or Seablock.
Its distinguishing feature is that it tries to make its recipes make sense and also provides an overarching narrative (terraforming the planet), so it feels more coherent than the absolute spam of recipes just for complexity's sake that some of the other mods have, and has a more interesting progression than just "research rocket and leave (except it takes 10,000 manufacturing steps rather than 20 now hahahhaha enjoy)" that mods like pY or B/A provide.

>>560006262
>I want to get back into the game, with a new overhaul, so I can play SA.
If you want to play SA then you don't need a new overhaul. If you want to play Nullius then it's almost ready for 2.0, but if you haven't even played SA yet then just go ahead and play that first, and you can search for overhauls afterwards.

>>560006010
>>560006335
K2 is like raw Bob's, mostly just vanilla with a few (overpowered) things added on top. Nullius is an overhaul mod, changes or removes over 90% of the original recipes.

>>560006858
True. That's mostly why it manages to still play nice with k2, too.

>>560006529
It changes enough about the mid and late game that none of the other overhauls are compatible.
>until you leave the planet but getting to that point is a struggle in itself.
Did you know that realise rockets in SA are unlocked with blue science and are 20x cheaper than in vanilla (needing 50 of each rocket component rather than 1000)? It's intentionally much easier to get to space, so you can get to the space content earlier, it's not just a post-game expansion for 1.0.
If you still think that that's a struggle then overhauls are not for you, but since you completed K2 fine I'm gonna assume you just didn't know about the changes. (Not that K2 is particularly long or complicated, but it's certainly more effort than reaching the rocket.)

>>560006858
meant for >>560006262

>>560006529
Not sure I ever played it on its own. Add K2, MSI2, industrial evolution or anything else to mix up the early game.

>>560006816
>If you want to play SA then you don't need a new overhaul

I know. I just struggle to get past the early game. I tried it when it first came out, had a full nuclear set up before even leaving the planet (which i realize was a mistake) and I just keep bouncing off it since then despite retying every few months.

>>560003603
>nutrient-positive fish loop on Nauvis
feels like this was a thing and then got removed at some point after the LAN
the tree farming and seeds were probably used for something else than shitty pollution sinks

>>560007191
Is there even a point to a nutrient-positive fish loop when the game basically demands you bring bioflux to Nauvis anyway?

>>560007140
>which i realize was a mistake
What?

>>560006858
Maybe K2 could be like Bob's if Bob's was good. Bob dramatically changes a few things (like circuits requiring way more assembly steps than in vanilla) though leaves other things mostly the same, and then adds insanely overpowered stuff once you progress through it. K2 sprinkles a small and measured amount of complexity throughout most of the progression, making everything just slightly more complex than vanilla like adding one or two more intermediates, an extra processing step, etc., without ever adding any insane processing chains; and then adds a chunk of post-rocket content that's still not particularly complex but ends up culminating in some pretty powerful endgame items. The only truly overpowered thing is probably the matter handling but by the time you unlock it you've basically won the game.

File: untitled.png (233 KB, 899x773)

233 KB PNG

>>560006397
>Yes you can build around them, that doesn't in any way disprove that they intentionally restricted the ability to destroy them to force a more puzzle-y gameplay progression.
Do you go out of your way to build next to the cliffs or something? Because I have never once encountered a scenario in Space Age where I've had this problem with cliffs.
>bu-b-but what about Fulgora?
The planet that does more to restrict your building with the shitty oil ocean? What about it?
>but Vulcanus!
Demolishers tear down cliffs for free.

>>560007252
Decoupling your processing. The converse question would be, what is the issue with having a nutrient-positive loop, if the player will have to bring in bioflux to Nauvis for other things anyway?
It just gives options, especially if for example achieving it required enough productivity so needed some effort and planning rather than just being plug and play. Forbidding it is just railroading, "no, we want bioflux to be the ONLY source of nutrients on nauvis, anything else would be cheese and illegal!".

>>560007492
>where I've had this problem with cliffs.
You keep thinking things can only count as restrictions if they cause problems. You can not have any problems with it and you can find it very easy to play around but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an artifical restriction that the devs put in just to make sure you follow the intended progression.
And I did specifically call out the cliff explosive restriction as one of the smaller aspects of this, compared to the multiple other much more prominent features that showcase this design philosophy.
>The planet that does more to restrict your building with the shitty oil ocean? What about it?
I never claimed that my initial list was comprehensive. Thanks for helping add another example of the puzzle/campaign like nature of the DLC.

>>560007496
I don't think there's a single loop in the game that creates infinite resources which is what you're asking for. They were also careful to cap productivity at +300% and ban productivity modules on recyclers.

>>560006161
>jaypeg dot png

>>560005897
>SA was designed with these restrictions in mind, it's inherently build with a puzzle/campaign-like structure and just ripping out the puzzle restrictions is likely to make it worse rather than better.

It would make parts of it entirely optional. Like, if the person doesn't want to build in a certain planet, he could build make the same itens on another surface after exporting the resources, or send fuel from surface to skip plataform building, with a penalty of needing to launch rockets for that. Different turrets could still be better in different ways, without being mandatory, like how you can already make solar powered ships on aquilo, but you need a huge ass footprint of solar panels for that.

For someone that already played SA before, skipping something he doesn't like its not bad and a new player could choose the extent he wishes to engage with the new mechanics

>>560007875
>I don't think there's a single loop in the game that creates infinite resources
Tree seeding is an infinite loop, no? Unlocked right around the same time as fish breeding, too. Takes only electricity and produces infinite wood and seeds.
On gleba fruits are also infinite, and hence so are nutrients etc., and with infinite nutrients you also have the bacteria breeding loop for infinite metals. I guess you could argue that it's similar to some sort of "mine" because it's restricted only to certain biomes, but with the endgame soil the plantable areas are the entire biome which is huge, and unlike mines it's truly infinite and also a true loop since you're looping back seeds to make more trees, which will yield fruits and a net positive surplus seeds, forever.

The recycling productivity cap makes sense as a global mechanic because otherwise you'd be able to duplicate any intermediate in the game, bypassing a huge chunk of processing chains. But individual loops like trees are apparently fine, and fish would've been a similarly narrow-scoped loop.

Heck, they could've let us turn tree seeds into nutrients or something, so you could at least feed the fish with a tree planting setup if a direct fish-to-fish loop was deemed too trivial.

>>560007835
>You keep thinking things can only count as restrictions if they cause problems.
No, "restrictions" are when you are outright unable to do something. What you're describing as a restriction is a minor inconvenience.

>You can not have any problems with it and you can find it very easy to play around but it doesn't change the fact that it's still an artifical restriction that the devs put in just to make sure you follow the intended progression.
Again, this is a minor inconvenience at worst and something that you need to actively play into in order to warrant playing around it.

>>560007252
Not really, no. The two use cases for it would be Fish upcycling for Legendary Spidertrons and fuel for Biochambers since a small number of Chemplant recipes work in Biochambers (with their +50% prod bonus). Problem is that you can just use nutrients from Bioflux or Biter Eggs for the latter, so there really isn't any point in it. The nutrients are effectively infinite from Biter Eggs if you have a constant supply of Bioflux.

>>560007298
It more than doubles bullet damage globally, for starters. Supposedly to make up for guns being actual projectiles, but it's crazy strong both for base defense and spaceships. All that immersium stuff is available before leaving Nauvis, including Tank mk2, imersium rounds, the purple assembler that goes from ore straight to gears/wires, 200mw nuclear power on just 4 heat exchangers and without neighbor bonuses, ...there's a lot. Even matter conversion is available before leaving nauvis, only planet-specific resources are locked and matter cubes for more efficient transport.

>>560008626
>you need a huge ass footprint of solar panels for Aquilo
fyi you just need green modules, cuts down your panel requirement to one fifth which is less than a dozen

>>560005407
Doubt it. Most the people in the forums seem to love dlc in early access games. "Dlc is an industry standard. Stop being entitled the devs need to eat" etc.
Ignoring the EA part for a minute I think it's way too expensive when there's only a single train that isn't a retarded gimmick.

>>560008915
I've never played K2SA, and everything I've heard from anons itt who did was that it's not very well balanced and doesn't fit very well and kind of fails at the purpose K2 was built for. So I was basing my post off of my experience with K2 without SA.
Bob's isn't SA-compatible either, is it? So it's a fair apples-to-apples comparison IMO.

>>560006010
If you can't handle a shitload of byproducts and a lot of chemical engineering, don't play it.

>>560008891
>What you're describing as a restriction is a minor inconvenience.
It's a restriction because you are not allowed to destroy cliffs until you reach the mandatory progress stage, experience the dev-mandated "cliff puzzle biome" on vulcanus, and are then granted permission to work past them.
It is objectively impossible to destroy cliffs on nauvis until you do this. (Unless you unlock atomic bombs before even vulcanus, but even then that's very expensive, and I wouldn't be surprised if they considered this "cheese" and nerfed it in 2.1 or something as an unintended mechanic.)

Does this restriction cause any major inconveniences in factory building on nauvis? No. But it's still an explicit restriction that the devs explicitly added to the game, with the explicit purpose of railroading you through a specific progression path they had in mind.
You can build your nauvis factory with only "minor inconvenience" but you CANNOT destroy cliffs, objectively.

It's also true that this was somewhat restricted in 1.0 behind oil for cliff, so it's not a completely new restriction. But what SA did was move this much further into the game, with the explicit purpose of forcing you to experience cliffs for longer and also specifically forcing you to experience their Vulcanus gimmick biome, because if you unlocked cliff explosives on nauvis that biome would not pose any obstacle. (It's still not much of an obstacle now as I mentioned, but that's because they didn't design it very well; the intention behind the design was explicitly stated.)

And you are still latching on to a single example that I explicitly pointed out as one of the most minor examples of restrictions/railroading in the SA campaign. If cliff explosives being delayed was the only such example with nothing else along these lines, I probably wouldn't have called it a campaign myself, so you don't need to hyperfocus on it as if disproving this detail would disprove the rest of my point.

File: 1 8PtvSdyB84sYR8cBoII6uw.jpg (32 KB, 500x574)

32 KB JPG

>>560008737
>Tree seeding is an infinite loop
Not what I had in mind but correct. Tree seeding can create infinite power, it is probably much less space efficient than solar panels tho, the advantage is the pollution sink (and that they look pretty)
Actually
>1 wood / square / 300 seconds [assuming they take 5 minutes like gleba trees]
>1 wood = 3 Mj (2Mj +50% because heating tower)
>therefore 10 000 joules per second per square (aKa 10 000 watts)

>1 common solar panel = 42 kW (average)
>it occupies 9 squares so 4 670 W per square
Well I'll be damned trees are almost as efficient as legendary panels (if you ignore that not every square gets utilized and). Lucky me I was already planting them.

>>560009174
Fair I guess. That "post-rocket content" bit made me focus more on SA but I see it was referring to old vanilla rocket launch.

>>560009791
You're typing a whole lot of shit just because you want to build around cliffs, and are stupid enough to consider their existence a puzzle to be played around instead of something you can avoid outright with minimal planning or underground belts.

I think I have more fond memories of playing SE even though I never finished it, than playing SA.
In SE you could float in space zero gravity, the jet pack too was nice and floaty with inertia. Getting into space was a nice moment but you don't get that in SA, you don't get to walk in your space platform, you don't really even get to build it.
My space factory ended up becoming a huge thing even though I never even finished the mod. Starting SE again feels daunting though.

I wish I was at my home playing factorio instead of shiposting about it on my phone :(

>>560011274
surprised there isn't a phone version by now, it's on all the consoles and a really old game by now

File: 1740483420661749.jpg (28 KB, 350x240)

28 KB JPG

>>560010027
corrections:
.- 1/4 of your wood has to go to making seeds
.- panels require accumulators, AND a heating tower has the energy accumulation potential of 50 accumulators, big win for trees

>>560011342
if you have a stable-ish network connection, you can just leave your PC running and play games on your phone through Steam Link
idk how well it works with factorio however, I've only used it for things that don't really need much effort

>>560010808
No, I'm typing a whole lot of text just because you seem unable to comprehend that
>"restrictions" are when you are outright unable to do something
despite this being your own words, and because you're hyperfocusing on the most minute detail out of the entire (non-exclusive) list I provided and think that it being a small detail with few consequences means my entire point is wrong.

>>560010027
>Not what I had in mind
It's an infinite resource-creation loop, granted trees are not very useful outside of power production but it's still an infinite loop. You can use them to make unlimited small power poles if you have another source of copper.
Infinite fish is not super useful either outside of their use in spidertrons (which needs a lot of other materials which are very finite on Nauvis), and infinite nutrients on Nauvis have basically zero use except for infinite fish.

I guess one big difference I hadn't considered actually is that the act of planting trees wipes the quality stat so you can't use it to cycle into legendary trees, whereas infinite fish breeding would allow cycling for infinite fish. But... it's not a big change from what you can already do right now, except you need a bit of bioflux to feed the nutrients right now (which as mentioned earlier you will already have on nauvis anyway), so it really wouldn't break anything.

>trees are almost as efficient as legendary panels
Huh that's actually neat, I never even considered tree power.
Too bad reactors (of both kinds) outclass them completely and only elves insist on solar

File: untitled.png (406 KB, 780x873)

406 KB PNG

This conversation inspired me to load one of my oldest base game saves, from when I had only just started playing the game and was floundering to figure things out, just to make sure this isn't some weird hindsight shit where the boon of experience has tricked me into thinking something isn't an issue. And as for cliffs, it was either the case that I actively built around them since they're free, indestructible walls, or just built underground pipes/belts because they're free to bypass.

I could see an argument to be mad about cliffsides moving to Vulcanus, if cliffs were ever an actual problem to begin with. But for a grand total of 2 and a half years, I never once crafted a cliffside explosive since a logical and reasonable person would either build around them, build through them, or plan out their bases so they don't intersect in the first place.

>>560011117
The thing that made me stick with SE despite all its flaws is how there's no one correct solution to logistics. You can ship in stuff and refine the ore into ingots on the planet, or you can process it one step and ship it to Nauvis and have a massive base there.
Meanwhile in SA there is exactly one way to do logistics and even then it's none existent since the first three planets are self sufficient. Even Aquillo only requires a meagre amount of stuff imported once the base is fully built. I also preferred the space ships in SE to the space platforms as they were more interesting to design.

>>560013292
The argument is that there's a dozen ways in which SA is railroady, and one anon got it in his head that because you can build around cliffs easily that means "not being able to destroy cliffs" does not qualify as "being unable to do something" and in his mind this is somehow the central argument behind the DLC being a campaign.

>But for a grand total of 2 and a half years, I never once crafted a cliffside explosive since a logical and reasonable person would either build around them, build through them, or plan out their bases so they don't intersect in the first place.
This doesn't really work in the late-game where you start making production blueprints you want to be able to copy-paste. Cliff shapes are irregular, so if you avoid destroying them you have to spend a bunch of effort hunting for places where you can fit your production cleanly and you'd probably need to make sure your blueprints are not too big and do a bunch of extra work running belts between smaller pieces nestled around cliffs, rather than being able to place them in a way where they're automatically connected.
But in the early and mid game before you start really scaling up, or if you just want to win asap and never bother building a large-scale factory, then yeah you're correct that they're not a big issue at all.
Though
>a logical and reasonable person would either build around them, build through them, or plan out their bases so they don't intersect in the first place
Cliff explosives are very cheap once you do unlock them, so it's not at all unreasonable to just flatten the cliffs that are inside your territory and not being used as a biter wall, if they're in your way. You can always build around them, but if you have explosives available, there's no "logical" or "reasonable" expectation to leave them untouched except as a self-imposed challenge or something.

>>560014092
It isn't railroady though. You don't need to go to Vulcanus to get cliff explosives just to deal with cliffs. You can just ignore the cliffs. And if you're really desperate for some reason, you can just overload a nuclear reactor and obliterate every cliff in sight.

>>560014034
>Even Aquilo only requires a meagre amount of stuff imported once the base is fully built
Unless you want legendary Aquilo tech. It takes 20 rocketfulls (approx avg) of refined concrete alone to make one legendary cryo plant.

>>560014435
>It isn't railroady though. You don't need to go to Vulcanus to get cliff explosives just to deal with cliffs
I really want to know what part of my post above where I listed multiple reasons I think the DLC is a campaign, is so hard to comprehend that now MULTIPLE anons are saying
>cliffs are not a big restriction therefore the DLC is not a campaign
Even after I pointed out multiple times that this is a minuscule part of the entire argument anyway.

Like at first I thought the earlier anon just had autism but now a second anon is saying the same thing, even after I tried explicitly drawing attention to this fact, so it might genuinely be a me issue in this case; tell me anons, what is it about my posts and this reply chain that's so hard to understand?

File: cliff explosives.webm (3.72 MB, 800x600)

3.72 MB WEBM

>>560014495
>overload a nuclear reactor
pretty sure they "fixed" that by making it produce lava lakes

>>560015156
kek

>>560014495
>>560015156
Nuclear bombs destroy cliff fine AFAIK (or at least they used to recently, if they didn't disable it in one of the minor patches)

>>560015156
They only do that on Vulcanus. But everywhere else, you can just use a reactor if you're desperate enough (or an atomic warhead if you're too stubborn to just go to Vulcanus)

>>560014952
You are complaining about it being "railroaded" when the only thing you mentioned that fits that description is being able to construct buildings off of their home planets (or rather, being unable to). All of the inner planets outside of that are completely non-linear. You can't say that the DLC is railroaded just because you have grievances about things that have such a minor impact on the experience as a whole that most people will either ignore them or call you stupid for complaining about them.

>>560014952
>tell me anons, what is it about my posts and this reply chain that's so hard to understand?
Nothing. There are a lot of people that are unable to separate the problem from a solution and are therefore unable to see the wholistic solution.
In this case though I think they’re overzealously defending cliffs out of a desire to defend spage against you. I love spage and I think you’re a faggot, but not enough to lie. The cliff explosive change in spage is objectively dogshit and to support that claim I don’t have to look any further than Wube’s own words and how they failed to accomplish their own goals - they are on record in an FFF stating that the idea was “unique outpost design” but there is no such thing on Vulcanus due to the generous building area and also the fact that an outpost on Vulcanus just consists of miners. Nauvis, Fulgora and Aquilo are all better at forcing unique outpost designs. Vulcanus outposts instead ended up being the most simple in the entire game.
There’s also an obvious dissonance in the way cliff explosives are handled versus elevated rails. Fulgora has the same puzzle with space constriction which is solved when you complete Fulgora’s research pack. However in Fulgora’s case it’s an upgrade to an existing feature you can have on Nauvis. They could’ve done the same with cliff explosives, but they didn’t, and I honestly think the reason for the difference is because elevated rails are a shiny new 2.0 toy and cliff explosives are old, and they were afraid that nobody would play with the new toys if they were too hard to get.

>>560018842
*holistic
holos like holocaust or hologram
Vulcanus would have been a more unique puzzle if they forced you to make something out of the stone (as I did on my first run what a titanic pain in the ass that was). Recyclers are OP and dumb down Vulcanus (stone), Fulgora (gears etc), Gleba (everything) and Aquilo (ice), all of which give you a ton of surplus trash by design.

>>560017660
>the only thing you mentioned
In >>560003603 other than cliff explosives and surface restrictions, I also list capacity restrictions, asteroid resistances, and fish breeding. The rest of the discussion also brought up aquilo heat pipes, fulgora oil islands ("you HAVE to build train-networked outposts because we made the area around the islands impassable, and the islands with resources are tiny while the islands with space for building are barren!"), and the entire set of space platform restrictions (no containers, no bots, mandatory set of turrets, mandatory ammo production that's gonna be the same every time, mandatory fuel production that's gonna be the same every time, mandatory diagonal engine building, mandatory nigger-rigged pump PWM in the exact same update where they added circuits to nuclear reactors because "nigger rigging inserter control was obtuse", extremely strong drag force for anything that's not a brick), and even this is probably not exhaustive.

I don't know how almost everyone just hyperfocused on cliff explosives and now when prompted you just bring up surface restrictions as the "only other thing" brought up.

BTW, the fact that you can do the three planets in any order means it's non-linear, but doesn't mean it's not a campaign. You still have to "complete the three levels" and solve the gimmick/puzzle on each of them (except vulcanus which is trivial and has no puzzle).

>>560018842
>I love spage and I think you’re a faggot
I like spage too, it's just objectively less free-form and sandboxy than the base game is.
It's still very fun, it's just a different structure. And as a consequence for example it'd be a lot more difficult for overhauls to integrate, so it's natural to expect most 2.0-compatible overhauls to target base 2.0 rather than SA with all planets.
Maybe I wasn't clear but my entire argument is "SA is a campaign extension for Factorio", and NOT "SA is bad (or whatever) because it's a campaign".

>>560019674
>stone
Unfortunately landfill exists, crafts near-instantly and compacts stone 100x (50 items per and 2x stack size) so this doesn't sound like a particularly interesting challenge.
>Recyclers [...] dumb down Fulgora (gears etc.)
It's the central mechanic though, it's a planet based on disassembly and a 100% efficient disassembler would absolutely rape quality. (Then again maybe the issue is quality.)
>Gleba (everything)
What do you need to void on Gleba that can't be thrown into a heat tower?
>and Aquilo (ice)
To be fair I think it's criminal that you can't dump shit into the Aquilo ocean, so having to use recyclers is at least some substitute for this oversight.

The entirety of SA is heavy on voiding mechanics (whether it be burning or throwing overboard/into lava, or recycling), for better or for worse. Recyclers are just a small part of that. I do think something like Nullius where byproduct management takes actual thought is more interesting, but vanilla Factorio is orders of magnitude less convoluted than overhauls like Nullius and I don't think you could easily fit any sort of similar processing chains without wildly blowing up the average complexity way beyond what Wube wanted for vanilla.

>>560020262
>What do you need to void on Gleba that can't be thrown into a heat tower?
It feels so cheesy and wasteful it's like sinning, but a linear Gleba factory where everything you can't instantly use ends up incinerated/destroyed runs effortlessly smoothly and almost removes spoilage from the equation, it may even give you a higher throughput considering the opportunity cost of shipping half-spoiled crappy bottles. You shred science and nutrients basically.

>>560014092
Thing is, vanilla also had restrictions and clear progress curve, most sandbox games have. You can't, for example, automate wall repair before bots and oil. You can't have tanks before oil.

The central point of this discussion seems to be where you draw the line, when the restrictions railroad the game too much or not.

One of you screams "not being able to destroy cliffs before vulcanus is a restriction", the other scream "its not a restriction, just build around it".

>>560021737
I think where I personally draw the line is between mechanics that naturally allow you to do things as you progress vs. mechanics that intentionally block you from doing certain things because the developers wanted to curate a specific experience.
There's also a similar line to be drawn between "restrictions" that are clearly part of the basic gameplay (like for example you can only place water pumps on shores with water, not just anywhere on the map) and restrictions which again are meant to curate a specific experience or provide a challenge meant to be solved as a kind of puzzle in itself (like the heat pipe minigame on aquilo).

So for an example of the former, having to wait to unlock bots is IMO just a natural consequence of having a tech tree in the first place. If you didn't want to have restrictions like that you'd have to start the player with all tech unlocked from the start. In comparison, in SA, you can consider for example the restriction to not allow containers like chests to be built on space platforms. It's something the developers put in on purpose to force the player to build platforms in the specific way they envisaged.
Cliff explosives being locked later is almost in a grey area and in a vacuum wouldn't necessarily even be an example I would've brought up here, except that they already existed in the game and already were unlockable early, and the devs actively and intentionally moved them to another part of the game specifically to curate a particular experience they wanted to force the player to have on vulcanus. And the evidence we have for that is literally their own explanation in a FFF.
So for instance if wube pushed out an update that locked bots behind Fulgora for example and said it was "so that the players had to experience scrap sorting with belts first" then I'd call it railroading as well. That's where I personally draw the line.

>>560023419
Locking bots behind fulgora is no different than locking them behind oil. Both are ways to force the player to do X before unlocking them. Both are ways of curating the experience. I suppose I could say that locking bots behind fulgora is a natural consequence of having a tech tree too.

I dislike of some SA decisions and locking vanilla content behind dlc planets is lazy, but you seem to have double standards to what you call restriction.

>>560023419
how do you feel about belt weaving promethium

>>560026614
Locking bots behind oil is kind of a bare minimum "you have to progress through the game to unlock better tools". Locking bots behind fulgora with the precise reasoning I gave would be an explicit "you have to solve this specific challenge in the specific way I intend you to, therefore I make sure you don't have ways to work around the challenge I intended".
There's nothing particularly interesting around oil or blue science that would be trivialised by bots, the only reason they're gated is just to provide progression through the tech tree, just like everything else is gated. For example, when locking trains behind green science the devs didn't go "muahaha, we will FORCE the player to solve the red and green science with just belts before allowing them to use the superior tool!".

Thinking about it, the closest thing to a railroaded challenge in vanilla that I can think of is locking laser and flamethrower turrets behind oil, because it forces the player to set up gun ammo production for initial defense before later unlocking ammo-less defense options.
But this isn't black and white, base game having a few design choices like this doesn't mean the rest of the game isn't overall sandboxy (within the limits of how sandbox a game with a tech tree can be), while SA has many many more examples of restrictions whose explicit clear purpose is to eliminate particular ways of solving a challenge and force players to use the dev-intended way to solve it. Many of which are not even bypassable with later tech but are permanent gameplay mechanics.

>>560026694
I think it's a very interesting case study, because it relates to a specific restriction devs put on the player - "prometheum packs are only buildable in space", combined with a stack size of 1 for asteroids and spoilable eggs, clearly intended to set up a specific "puzzle" for players to solve, namely how to build a deep space platform that's fast enough. This is exactly the kind of design I'm talking about; the intended challenge is not "use X resoures to build Y science pack", the intended challenge is "build this science but look, you have to bring a spoilable ingredient into far away orbit, so now we are forcing you to make sure your space platform is fast enough, forcing you to optimise your egg storage, making you add defenses on the platform or craft a schedule that avoids spoilage, etc.". This is the exact kind of thing that doesn't really exist in the base game.

Belt weaving is an alternate solution that the devs didn't anticipate. It's "cheesing the challenge", something that you didn't really see in the base game at all because it lacked dev-designed "challenges" in the same way.
And the most telling thing for me is that the devs expressed displeasure and a desire to nerf it for 2.1. It's not clear how they would do it, but what matters for me is their attitude - "we want you to play the game THIS way, players found a way to do it another way, this is a problem that has to be fixed". I don't remember anything in the base game where the devs ever patched or nerfed things because players found ways to do things in way that weren't intended, except for rare true exploits (free items with productivity) and maybe sometimes with combat since that kind of has to be balanced to have any chance of being fun (though I don't remember many changes even there).
There was simply not a single case I can remember of devs going, oh players are building such and such kind of factories, this is bad and we must change our game to prevent it from happening.

does blud always yap like this

>>560028420
>zoomcel crying after being brutally wordmogged

File: 1437014020110.jpg (8 KB, 250x250)

8 KB JPG

>>560028364
>balanced to have any chance of being fun (though I don't remember many changes even there).
They added target priorities like, yesterday
Not saying it filtered me, but defending was a challenge.

I'm also 40% sure but I haven't factchecked this, that they fucked with the side on which inserters drop items to nerf spammable blocks consisting of 1 factory+inserters+underground I/O. People used to post modules like that and I haven't seen then in a while. When I last tried it didn't work but maybe I didn't try hard enough, IIRC the items always dropped on the same side of the belt regardless if they were facing right/left/up/down so it couldn't fill a belt making it pretty shit. (again 40% sure I may be talking out of my ass).

File: was this alwas the case.png (240 KB, 601x655)

240 KB PNG

>>560030062
visual representation of what I mean

>>560031305
that seems worth fixing just for the asymmetry

File: 1.jpg (992 KB, 1920x1080)

992 KB JPG

I love that powerspike when you get big excavators going. Now I can afford steel production and get way cheaper mechanical parts.

Food shortages will continue until morale improves.

I want quality fluids

hi good afternoon

I want a girlfriend

>>560034930
that doesn't look very advanced for a 2077 machine

>>560035543
if you thought the COI death spiral was bad

>>560035873
enshittification took its toll on the industry by then

>>560027496
I feel we may just be arguing semantics at this point, but technically, locking bots behind oil is still a restriction. The point I was trying to make is that you just call what you don't like a restriction and the ones you approve are handwaved away.

>>560034930
Little wonder what happened to the previous 105 Dave Matzeks.

>>560034930
Why did they let a 106 year old near it?

>>560035543
wrong egg

File: sticker.jpg (30 KB, 600x600)

30 KB JPG

i want to make a realistic map in coi, but i also have to unrealistically group all of the resource deposits together which is not good since their real life terrain is quite different

File: 1771929768214936.png (38 KB, 859x188)

38 KB PNG

Please go leave a positive review!

why are you obsessed about that game
and why is the review score taking a hit

>>560039864
people are angry at a paid DLC with actual content being released while the game is still early access AND the devs handling of the criticism of the practice being really fucking bad

>>560039675
gas this marek as well

>>560039864
I don't care about the dlc drama but I find begging for positive reviews to be of poor taste

>>560040152
>>560040418
alright back to not caring

>>560039675
Seeing this after getting banned from their steam forum for telling people to go review the game when this whole shitshow started fills me with childlike joy.

>>560041247
the kind you get spanked for

>>560039675
keeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeek

>>560039675
COI more like COK

>>560019801
>mandatory nigger-rigged pump PWM
this is retarded overcomplication, with the only usecase of reaching the shattered planet if you can somehow get a signal when "the asteroids are getting close to fucking your shit up but they haven't yet"
want go fast? add more engines(and fuel production)
want go slow? disconnect engine or fuel production

if your problems arise because a single engine ship is still too fast you need to make it less shit

>>560044970
I agree and I don't do it, but the converse argument is "if tightly controlling the speed is not extremely important then why not just give people an easy way to do it if you want?".
What I find funniest is that in 1.0, nuclear reactors were like that and people would rig together fuel control using inserter circuits, and in 2.0 they basically looked at it and said yeah, this is overcomplicating things for no reason, we should've just made nuclear reactors have a circuit connection. They also applied the same logic to a bunch of other stuff, so in 2.0 we got circuits on splitters, massive circuit features on assemblers, lots of improved circuit control features for trains and stations, etc.

But then they add engines and make extremely overcomplicated efficiency/thrust/fuel curves - and I agree with you that most of the time you really don't need to care, but clearly Wube thought this was interesting enough to add very specific and detailed curves with unique formulas for both thrust and efficiency separately.
And then, in the same update where they said "adding artificial complexity by refusing to add circuit support to reactors, assemblers etc. is dumb, nigger-rigging inserters is not interesting, we'll let you control them directly", in this same update, they add a shiny new toy with complicated controls and refuse to let us connect circuits to them and decide it's going to be genius game design to force us to nigger-rig pump circuits if we want to control them.

It's not important but the juxtaposition is just really funny to me.

>>560039675
>wave of positive reviews right after
begging worked??

>>560049005
I left a positive review just to make the poorfags complaining about the DLC seethe

>>560046192
I actually like the obamarigged PWM engines because it feels like an actual solution an engineer would have to implement and it makes it so the machine itself isn't smart enough to control it's own input, which it shouldn't be. Same with the nuclear reactor, putting the fuel in and then being unable to pause the reaction is expectable and creates an intuitive puzzle, the machines aren't smart, the engineer is. But then comes the problem with someone at some point in the past thinking we shouldn't be able to read the temperature which is more of a problem with Wube's overall approach to combinators, because I don't find them very useful at all and they're not very rewarding. It's all either the simplest shit in the world (cracking) or entire computers to run automalls with no in between. Why does the game give me a siren but no way to detect biter attacks? Being afraid to make something "too useful" is antithetical to a game like this

>>560039864
Devs started banning people on the forums lol

File: 1772234571002770.jpg (14 KB, 330x329)

14 KB JPG

I'm playing Medieval engineers again.

File: IDontKnow.webm (644 KB, 1158x720)

644 KB WEBM

>>560039675
>Only if you enjoy the game and feel they have earned it.
>If your opinion changes later, you can always update it.
idgi. Whats the controversy? Isn't that the point?

>Nullius tanks no longer need to be pressurized
Thank Grodd. Yeah it loses some character but I didn't like that so fuck it

>>559990657
I don't think there are only 2 options. The way to do it would be for the "puzzles" to introduce new mechanics which can then interact with existing mechanics as well, or they could provide alternative solutions to some problems already solved.

SA does this, but it's kind of so-so, it doesn't really fully succeed at it. Vulcanus adds some unique mechanics but they're not a major departure, but the Foundry and the availability of molten metals can be quite transformative to how you build things. It may not be super unique but it does a very good job of constructively integrating with the rest of the game.

Gleba is extremely unique, but it doesn't really provide any major mechanics or options that integrate with the rest of the game (other than the stack inserter, which is mostly tacked-on to Gleba and has nothing to do with its core mechanic). Fulgora is kind of the same, it's unique but doesn't really provide anything other than a machine which does things you could already do, but better.

Aquilo is the worst of the bunch I think. The idea to mess around with temperature is really, really good but it's implemented in a lazy / poor / boring way, just dragging heat pipe next to everything is shitty and not very interesting. The temperature mechanic it toys with also doesn't integrate with the rest of the game at all.

I feel like with some more thought / effort SA could have avoided the feeling of things basically being tacked on to the side of Factorio rather than being integrated into the whole. I think it's certainly possible, though SA didn't quite reach the same level of masterclass of game design that vanilla managed. Doing this sort of whole-game integration of new mechanics might be more difficult / impossible for mods, but it shouldn't be for an actual expansion where the devs can change the core engine as they please.

>>560056774
Yeah, you make good points about the parts that SA did manage to do well. Foundries and a liquid metal bus are indeed transformative (though it's also not really a "new mechanic" - it's brand new for vanilla factorio, but general fluid-based manufacturing has been very common in mods since forever, including molten metals of course).
Gleba does a fantastic job at introducing a new factory paradigm, and you're right that it's unfortunate that it's so self-contained. But I don't know how you could really make it be less self-contained without fucking the rest of the game and reworking it to be "gleba 2", which would not be fun or interesting either. A few items already have spoilage where it makes sense, I think that's good and basically you get some processes here and there that require gleba-like latency management. Maybe it should've been taking a little bit father.

Fulgora I don't find that interesting. Scrap sorting is fun but you don't really build that much of a different factory in the end; you just need some looping and extra processing to get the base materials you need, and you get some intermediates for free, and from there you build the rest of the factory the same way.

I definitely agree that Aquilo could have been so much more than a shitty tacked-on gimmick if they actually went all the way with temperature simulation.

File: 2.jpg (547 KB, 1920x1080)

547 KB JPG

Look at him go

Are we truly EOS? I feel like we are slowly bleeding out due to multiple bad dev decisions

File: 1748623010587946.jpg (27 KB, 558x541)

27 KB JPG

>>560059364
Add a slash to refine your search results.

File: Untitled.jpg (183 KB, 2542x1541)

183 KB JPG

Satisfactory modeler is so fucking good.

>>560053440
vgh what covld have been...

>>560059174
how deep can the floating excavators dig? i am wondering how deep of a pool i could make

>>560034930
The machine spirit was not given the proper respect by the operator, who should've performed the ritualistic rite of "Wooden scrap formed in the shape of a human finger, in substitution of a real human finger."

>>560069961
No clue since I haven't made one yet. That guyis delivering construction parts to water pumps on theother side of the island. I'd guess at least 3 down since I think that's how deep water needs to be for a dock.

>>560076020
now that ships can move freely, they should let us have boats for moving things around the map

>>560078340
"Muh balance"-devs

>>560078340
but then who will buy their train dlc? they need to wait for the paypiggies to consume that first before giving them alternative logistic options

>>560078340
Ship DLC

>>560086035
they will make a helicopter dlc

File: 1625788227066.webm (2.77 MB, 1280x720)

2.77 MB WEBM

>>560088289
Now there's an idea

>>560059174
>that poop pipe

>>560089505
how many hours of arma 3 do i need for this?

>>560090237
The Ganges provides "sanitation"

Is there a command in factorio to skip/unlock a specific tech? I'm playing with the planet start mod, started on fulgora and landed on Vulcanus. The trigger tech for foundries is stuck at 99% no matter how much tungsten carbide I produce. Tried reloading, restarting, no change.
The wiki is unhelpful as ever.

>>560095801
>the wiki is unhelpful
have you tried reading?
getting the research you want is the tricky part - you can either find the research name in the space-age.cfg locale or by pressing f4/f5 ingame, enabling debug tooltips and opening the research screen

>>560095801
https://steamcommunity.com/app/427520/discussions/5/4631482569784825292/

>>560096903
>have you tried reading?
You're asking too much

>>560062165
>pure iron ingot
>iron wire
Fucking disgusting.

>>560096903
>>560098621
70% of americans read below a 3rd grade level

File: 716490_20260312073251_1.png (1.07 MB, 1920x1080)

1.07 MB PNG

Kek because of the way powering off a host works, my solution needs one NOOP to not fail test 11 and NINE (9) NOOPs to not fail test 29

>>560106394
Niggers, more specifically

CoI amphibious vehicles can dig 5 tiles below water.

>>560069961
-5

i uninstalled pirated factorio what a trash game tbqhwy

>>560108391
Hey! Stop playing it as an idle game!

File: 716490_20260312082502_1.png (1.04 MB, 1920x1080)

1.04 MB PNG

My PEMDAS is right here right?

File: Spoiler Image (3 KB, 273x123)

3 KB PNG

>>560111692
It clearly says
(BA + ZA + APB) / 3 + WRT * OI / OD + (PC - PS)* 20
If you need to even consider order of operations, you haven't grasped basic arithmetic yet.

>>560112007
Basic arithmetic as communicated in this pretend language. Relax chief.

>>560112313
Click that SHOW GOAL button and compare if you're still unsure.

>>560053440
Why would you do that to yourself? I still dream of what could have been

File: 716490_20260312090317_1.png (1.05 MB, 1920x1080)

1.05 MB PNG

>>560112693
I was right, just checking.
I fail on test 7 because the highest player is on the last entry and apparently I've been killing the other exa as it's in the middle of reading the last entry every time

File: 716490_20260312091646_1.png (981 KB, 1920x1080)

981 KB PNG

3rd level in a row that I add to niggerig with NOOP spam :/

File: ksnip_20260312-093330.png (35 KB, 383x525)

35 KB PNG

This work betters but it actually raises the cycles from 197 to 214 oddly enough.

File: 716490_20260312105311_1.png (1.03 MB, 1920x1080)

1.03 MB PNG

Ok this kind of pisses me off. I was flummoxed for an hour on why the fuck this was failing, thinking it was a timing issue and I needed NOOPs again.
Turns out the central 200 Castle isn't always the only file with with pointer IDs in it; some of the other buildings, arbitrarily, will have some too. Upgrade side-buildings and such. Complicates this, fuck me

File: glebn.jpg (1.5 MB, 1920x1080)

1.5 MB JPG

does this seem like a good foundation to build up a gleba base from
I'm pretty sure it will not stop working
then from here I can do bioflux and get the rest of the production chains set up, without worrying about needing to fiddle with the basic supply by hand

I forgot to use @REP in a puzzle again. I still haven't used it.
Next time for sure

File: Screenshot 2026-03-12 184839.png (43 KB, 388x545)

43 KB PNG

>>560124384
I'm actually proud of my solution on this (64 cycles)

>>560126359
change the yumaco setup so that long arms don't have to move fruit (two assemblers on the right), you don't need to move the factories if you don't want to just snek the belts

File: 716490_20260312120734_1.png (565 KB, 1920x1080)

565 KB PNG

>>560128130
Yep I really need to into @REP

File: Message.png (160 KB, 862x436)

160 KB PNG

>>560129898
You don't use Messages for synchronization, at all?

>DSP small patch
>Added 3 new combat situational music tracks. These will play depending on the actual combat situation and historical play frequency. They can also be toggled on/off in the settings.


More combat music must mean combat 2.0 is right around the corner right?

>>560130378
I have before. I tried it here but this NOOP thing turned out easier

Best engineering game if I'm a gay sub bottom?

File: file.png (110 KB, 467x303)

110 KB PNG

>>560108391

>>560138052
Yes yes, don't let my Exas get turned off

File: 716490_20260312143348_1.png (1.09 MB, 1920x1080)

1.09 MB PNG

Fuck I feel retarded. How tf do I get around the 9999 limit and wrap around to 0 without literally 1 number at a time incrementing up and past 9999?
Don't answer that. It probably lies in a conditional if x AND t are both above 5000 right?

or 4999, rather

>>560145669
Quote of shame