Comment on What's a recent game you've tried playing that isn't worth the hype?

• WolfLink@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

  I’m curious how you play factorio because when I played there was very little refactoring, just adding more and more onto the assembly line.

  source

  • themusicman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    Factorio sucks for perfectionists. You have to be able to embrace the spaghetti, and not everyone can

    source

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Yeah I’ve seen people try to balance things perfectly in factorio, but strat is always to overproduce and let belts getting backed up balance out the throughput.

      source

      • themusicman@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        Yeah same. I’ve seen other people stockpile intermediate resources to try and smooth out bottlenecks, but I think that’s wasteful. Build extra throughout, and have as little product sitting there as possible.

        source
  • De_Narm@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

    I’m fuzzy on the details, but it went something like this:

    • I set up long resource lines of coal, copper and iron.
    • I needed a thing#1 and built a neat little package to build it, exactly to order and on minimal space.
    • I copy pasted that design 10 times left to right along my resource belt line.
    • Then thing#2 came along. Needed the same stuff and combined with thing#1 into thing#3. So I wrapped my resource belts, designed a second package on minimal space and also copy pasted it 10 times. So I had pairs of thing#1 and thing#2 with a line in the middle to combine them and a belt to collect them. Worked nicely.

    Then:

    • Coal was replaced by electricity. I had no space for powerlines.
    • I got other types of the grab thingies, potentially simplifying my setup.
    • Suddenly I got sorting, making my belt setup a waste of space (I had one line per thing/resource).
    • All belts needed to be replaced by better belts.

    Oh and:

    • Thing#4 came along, needing 2 of thing#1 and one thing#2 with some additional resources. Since I built to order, I basically had to start from scratch or severly hamper the production of thing#3. Also, my packages didn’t work anymore without wasting space and/or entirely fucking up resource belt management.

    Therefore, I designed stuff from scratch to fit the new requirements.

    That’s from the very beginning, but after repeating this pattern a few times, I gave up. Building it non-optimized felt even worse.

    source

    • WolfLink@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

      Interesting. Optimizing the factory for your immediate current needs sounds very tedious, because those needs change all the time. I instead optimize for expandability and adaptability. The factory game genre isn’t for everyone, but if you are interested in some tips:

      My solution is usually something like:

      • really long line of basic resources (usually a belt of smelted copper and a belt of smelted iron, eventually adding more stuff and adding more belts of iron and copper as supplies are needed)
      • when I need thing 1, I make a little package that builds it, drawing resources from the line with splitters so the excess can continue down the line
      • thing 2 is an independent little package farther down the line
      • When it’s time for thing 3, I build copies of the packages for building thing 1 and thing 2 as necessary to feed the construction of thing 3, again as separate feeds splitting off the main resource line
      • when it’s time for thing 4, its again independent of the production of things 1-3, except they are splitting off the same main resource belt
      • If the resources on the main belt are insufficient to feed all of those machines, one of three things needs to happen: 1. Add more raw resource processing until your belt is full and backed up at the beginning 2. If that’s not enough, upgrade the belt 3. If you don’t have a belt upgrade available, build another main resource line and use splitters to rebalance it onto the main line

      This construction allows for easy expansion without having to destroy anything. I typically don’t disassemble anything unless it’s actually a problem for some reason or I need the space. This is especially important because you often need some basic components like the level 1 belts even into the late game.

      Also, once you unlock robots, you can literally copy-paste, just select an area to upgrade all belts/arms/etc. in, and a lot of other neat tricks that drastically speed things up.

      And one last peace of advice: Overproduce everything and let belts backing up balance out the resource distribution. Then if you discover that belts that previously were backed up are now sparse, figure out why and optimize it, usually by adding more production of whatever the missing resource is.

      Ultimately throughput is all that matters. Loss of throughput because you don’t need something isn’t wasteful. Loss of throughput because you aren’t producing enough of something is a problem to solve. Things that don’t affect throughput don’t matter and aren’t wasteful.

      source

      • Arkthos@pawb.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨day⁩ ago

        I played pretty much the same way De_Narm did. I tried caring less, though because I had no idea what would come next, it inevitably descended into spaghetti. I am stressed out about technical debt enough at work to be playing a technical debt simulator lol.

        Dedicating the space needed to expand, ensuring everything you build is scalable, inevitably requires you to know a lot about what’s coming.

        Yeah, if you know what you’re doing you can avoid these issues. I did not enjoy myself in the slightest, so after some hours of giving it a chance I decided that learning how to avoid these issues was not worth the pain. I’ll just stick to work instead.

        source