• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

73 Excellent

About AzeTheGreat

  • Rank
  1. Well it depends entirely on how it's implemented. You're right that if it's just heating vat -> reactor then it's quite boring, and adds nothing to the game. That's why I tried to expand on it a little. Lets say our heating vat works as a batch system, while the reactor is continuous. So you pump in oil to the heating system, when it's full it heats for a while, then it pumps out your sour gas. So the most basic setup of heating vat -> reactor still works for an initial setup, but you're going to have large downtimes, and it's far from optimal. This immediately introduces more depth. One potential solution is using two heating chambers, and using automation to alternate between the two (one outputting gas while the other fills/heats). That gives you a much more even flow, at the cost of greater design considerations. Maybe instead of automation, you decide to use multiple gas tanks to act as a buffer and cover your downtime. Then, as long as your average sour gas production exceeds demand, you'll be covered. That's not a ton of depth, but this also does something else important: introduces the ability for logistical depth as stuff scales up. This is something that Factorio does extremely well, and ONI does horribly - small operations are easy, but as you scale up balancing resource flow and distribution becomes more challenging. Scaling beyond anything more than 1000g/s of sour gas flow would require more design adjustments than just attaching more machines to the same piping infrastructure. And that's just the start - think about dealing with heat now. If the sour gas comes out hot (as it should), then you have to deal with it. At low throughputs, just letting the environment cool it is probably more than enough, but as we scale up maybe we need to send it through an aquatuner to handle the heat quickly enough. But maybe the reactor could have an ideal temperature, causing it to work faster or give better conversions? That could encourage separating the cooling so that the target temperature could be more accurately reached, and cooling the sour gas through a heat exchanger built with radiant pipes. Maybe that ideal heat is close to some explosive threshold (seriously can we get explosions and fires?), making it a risk vs reward - push it too far without proper safety mechanisms and it could go boom. Then that ties back into the additional heating vat vs gas storage I pointed out earlier - storing more gas is inherently less safe and could cause a bigger explosion. And that's just exploring a couple possibilities for depth...if reactions could have catalysts and different reaction pathways, then that introduces additional choices. Maybe we use a byproduct in a different process, or maybe we use it as a recycle stream. The germ system could probably be adjusted slightly to create a contaminant system so that filtration becomes an option. Hopefully this shows how it could easily introduce depth, without making early designs an insurmountable hurdle for new players.
  2. At least personally, I want internal consistency in gameplay. ONI has a fairly amazing system of gas/liquid/heat interactions - it's not perfect for sure, but it allows us to make super interesting builds, like oil boilers. These require a lot of thought and design to make functional, and there's so much room for optimization. It creates in depth and rewarding gameplay. Now, contrast this with the default buildings ONI provides - many of them essentially serve as 'magic boxes'. Stuff goes in, stuff comes out, with almost no consideration for the processes that are required to occur there. Compare an oil boiler with the refinery - which one is more interesting to design? However, I completely understand that there must be some minimum level at which we accept the 'magic boxes', after all, nobody wants to design a pump and test different impellers...and the early game would be too difficult otherwise. The problem is that, when it goes too far in the direction of magic boxes, we lose the interesting interactions with the rest of the game world and it feels weirdly inconsistent. Just to make some comparisons of where there are ways to do things both with compositions of smaller parts and with the inbuilt structures: Oil boiler vs Oil refineries Physical gas tanks vs Gas Reservoir Door pump vs Actual pump Density vs Mechanical vs Standard filters Heat exchanger vs Aquatuner etc My issue is that different buildings seem to have different levels of granularity and viability. In a perfectly consistent world - everything would be built out of the same fundamental building blocks. Minecraft is a good example of this: everything takes up a block - a massive auto smelter is just a combination of many smaller and simpler blocks, working in harmony to create something greater. There isn't some 'automatic smelter', 5x5x5 structure that could optionally replace it, and I doubt anyone would want there to be. ONI can operate like this as well - just look at any oil boiler design, they're all made of the same fundamental parts: blocks, pipes, doors, and automation. That feels consistent. Now look at a refinery - oil goes in, petroleum and other stuff comes out. There's no concern for us to control temperature ranges, no flowrate concerns, it's a magic box that just somehow works - and it does the job of many smaller parts. Compare that to something like a door pump vs the standard pump. The door pump does do a better job of feeling like it's made from constituent parts, but the pump isn't really a problem because it only does one thing. So, this brings me to my evaluation of what's wrong with the current state of the game / path it's heading down: It's almost always possible to replace an inbuilt machine with a composition of basic parts; this is good and adds depth to gameplay. The problems arise when the inbuilt solution is orders of magnitudes worse, rather than being a trade off with positives and negatives for both, as was the case with oil boilers and is the case with filters; that reduces depth of gameplay because there are objectively better options to take. Finally, the game feels inconsistent because some machines don't just do a single thing - they excessively simplify complex processes into magic boxes; this removes depth from the gameplay because players can just plop down magic boxes without having to perform any sort of design. So, I believe that, as it currently stands, many of the buildings in game are too simplistic for their purpose, and should be split into multiple small buildings. I'm not versed in the process of refining oil, but assuming it requires some kind of reaction and heating process, the refinery could easily be re-purposed into a reaction chamber while a new heating vat could be created. Make the reactor operate continuously while the heating chamber operates in batches and you've already added some depth in design to the oil refinery without making it significantly more complicated to build (New players will actually have to think about how they construct it, but it's not so many pieces that it takes more than a cycle once they come up with a design). This has the added benefit of allowing buildings to be used flexibly: a reactor could have a sour gas -> natural gas recipe, petroleum -> rocket fuel, etc. It could have the ability to accept catalysts to improve reaction conversions, rates, etc. The water sieve could be repurposed into a general filtration machine for removing impurities, the slime distiller could be turned into a distillation tower, and so on. By breaking buildings up into small, single-use structures that also interact with the environment, more design depth is added to the game without making it outright harder, it feels more internally consistent, and it makes it easier for developers to give pros and cons to choosing either the inbuilt structures or player crafted alternatives. Theoretically...
  3. Numerous people have commented on this, so I just want to clarify. Because when I first loaded up the game I think there was a hitbox issue that cause it to occupy a 3x7 space. I am positive it originally took that much space because I drew a box of tiles around it...
  4. I believe their use of modular is referring to the fact that you construct the rockets yourself out of smaller components. While I hope what you wrote is also true, I feel that it will take significant expansion for this update to have the depth required to be an interesting gameplay component, which is why I really hope they take another full patch cycle to flesh it out. I feel that I explained my issue with the system as it stands. I did not really provide in depth specific solutions or improvements, even though I can think of plenty, because I'm sure the developers know what their goal is and how they'd like to reach it - if my feedback is useful then they'll take it into account.
  5. I'm not sure what you're trying to say here? Obviously I understand there are more than 2 elements, there are already multiple...
  6. You're right. From a coding perspective that's a lot of work, and they've laid a lot of groundwork for future expansions. Currently, from a gameplay perspective, it really doesn't add very much at all in my opinion, and I don't see small tweaks making it much better. Right, and I find the core part of this update to be dull and uninteresting. Maybe a MKII will fix that, and it's fine if that's what it takes. The reason I've brought this up is that I've consistently felt that most of the game systems they've added feel a bit lacking and have a ton of room for expansion and improvement, yet that's not been realized. So when this update felt even more lacking to me, I wanted to point it out in hopes that future updates improve it. I should've taken more time to more thoroughly explain myself at the start...
  7. No, this is literally exactly what I'm trying to say. Reread the conversation. I thought this update was too barebones, it was pointed out that there are still 2 weeks left for them to work on it. I pointed out that, historically, the two week periods have not introduced significant gameplay changes, and thus I will almost certainly still find it to be too barebones even when it fully releases. I would argue that the Ranching and Cosmic ones were relatively small tweaks, yeah. The expressive had a bit more content, but nothing drastic. I doubt the equivalent of adding some more rocket modules and planets would really improve the gameplay here. You seem to be under the impression that I'm bashing or unsatisfied with the developers. I'm not. I'm perfectly fine with this as a first step. I'm just stating that I'd be really disappointed if there's no MKII for this update, because it feel exceptionally simplistic to me.
  8. Joining forums =/= joining the game and following the updates. Also, I was specifically referring to the changes that occurred between the prerelease and final release versions of those updates. Since I was responding to this If you can show me significant changes that occurred in the two weeks for those updates then I'll reconsider, but they all seem to be bug fixing, artwork, and small tweaks to me.
  9. For the updates I've been around for, I've not seen any that have significantly expanded on features to the level that would be required to make this one interesting (Edit: In the pre-release to release period - since this is being misinterpreted). Hopefully. Hopefully there's a Rocketry MKII update. I honestly hope they expand on most of the systems currently in the game, because they all feel a bit barebones to me.
  10. Just petroleum. It's honestly super boring. The rockets themselves don't even have any engineering/design aspects to them. If we had to balance weight of food/oxygen giving longer travel times, but adding more mass, that could be interesting. Send your dupes on a slow, fuel conserving trip that will take a long time to return and consume food, or a blazing fast journey that will eat up fuel. Smaller rocket parts that are more modular would help as well...I dunno, this just feels so half baked to me
  11. The game crashes. I was able to get...half a launch...but I forgot to open the bunker doors. Reloaded to try again and it crashes every time now.
  12. Well, that's also because specific heat capacity is always abbreviated as cp. While I was able to figure out what SHC referred to, I've literally never seen it that way before.
  13. My thoughts so far: Gas Reservoir - What's the point? 21 tiles to store 150kg. That's worse than a high pressure gas vent. Liquid Reservoir - A bit better, 6 tiles for 5t of storage. I'd really at least like to see some kind of compressor to increase these and make them better than natural storage. Or maybe link capacity with material strength. DTU/s - I'd rather see energy conservation improved than switching to a nonsensical heat unit (unless I just can't find it anywhere...). This will just confuse new players even more. Gas Bottler and Emptier - A welcome addition that makes the game more complete. Petrloeum -> Sour Gas - Boiling oil was definitely overpowered, but I'd really like to see large contraptions that interact like that encouraged, rather than being discouraged or completely broken. Rocketry seems interesting. We'll see how much depth it adds to the game...
  14. [Game Update] - 279276

    That's fine, it's your decision to not update and continue playing the old version. For what it's worth, the final release is a bit more reasonable, and also fixed the more severe bugs. At the same time, the game is in beta, so you shouldn't expect that transitioning saves be a perfectly smooth experience, and I'm not liking everyone complaining that it makes existing saves impossible - it should be looked at from the persepctive of starting a new game, not dropping into the middle of an existing hellhole.