Installa Steam
Accedi
|
Lingua
简体中文 (cinese semplificato)
繁體中文 (cinese tradizionale)
日本語 (giapponese)
한국어 (coreano)
ไทย (tailandese)
Български (bulgaro)
Čeština (ceco)
Dansk (danese)
Deutsch (tedesco)
English (inglese)
Español - España (spagnolo - Spagna)
Español - Latinoamérica (spagnolo dell'America Latina)
Ελληνικά (greco)
Français (francese)
Indonesiano
Magyar (ungherese)
Nederlands (olandese)
Norsk (norvegese)
Polski (polacco)
Português (portoghese - Portogallo)
Português - Brasil (portoghese brasiliano)
Română (rumeno)
Русский (russo)
Suomi (finlandese)
Svenska (svedese)
Türkçe (turco)
Tiếng Việt (vietnamita)
Українська (ucraino)
Segnala un problema nella traduzione
Questa discussione è stata chiusa 
Regole e linee guida per le discussioni
Segnala questo messaggio
You seem to be very imprecise in what you actually want. You act as if we know that other planets are just going to be copies of Nauvis - even though it was already said they will have different goals, military ones included. You ask for reason to explore, but at the same time pretend that is "not difficult, small story". These two are leagues apart - a small story that is not difficult to implement would feel shoehorned and cringe, a proper exploration gameplay would take tons of dev time. Finally, you link to another topic by yourself which seems to be a fan-fiction of a rather... questionable... value, again, with absolutely no idea what that would do to the dev time.
We all get times where we enjoy a game but would prefer it to be different - but you have to realize, it might be because you are not the target for that game.
Its pretty evident that megabase style of play is what the devs are heading for in the expansion but the mega base will be spread over several planets and platforms instead of a main base with outposts on the start planet. The platforms will be the new interplantary trains logistic system and first rocket launch will no longer be the end game goal. The devs could have put robot logistics on trains in the base game but they didn't. They gave us thematically appropriate spidertrons for that even though there are some people that are arachnophobic. It was a design choice, so is this.
Having to be a completionist on achievements is a personal preference only a tiny portion of the player base attempts. I can't physically do the speed achievements unless I were to mod in drones from the start. I'm not complaining that the devs didn't do enough for accessibility since the portion of the player base with similar issues is small. What would you do if the devs had put robots on platforms and them made an achievement for not using them in a play through? Would you not use them and get the achievement or complain that was included as an achievement? Should the devs take the several hundred hours to make changes that only a couple of forumites are having issues with or should they make a base that everyone can work with and let the minority of players mod the game after release. As a person who ran a business in the past I know which way I would go. In fact, back in '88 I bought my very first brand new car. I ordered it without any accessories (like a stereo) and saved several thousand dollars. Then I spent a few hundred and added the ones I wanted on my own.
As far as mods go. If there are enough people that absolutely can't play with space platforms without robots someone out there will take the time to make a mod to include them. I'm certain it won't be exactly the way you would have done it. Would you use it but complain that it missed minor nuances that you must have to be happy or would you take the time to thank the mod creator?
Isn't it premature to complain about animations that are clearly (and as stated by the devs) place holders during development? If history has taught us any thing there are some players that will complain about new animations being added and want to know if there is any way/how to mod back in the old ones.
Not everyone is a perfectionist (though many of WUBE's devs clearly are) and the definition of perfection changes with the individual.
I'm sorry but complaining about minor things (and especially comparing Wube to Bethesda) just seems petty to me especially since we've been given the tools to modify the game any way that we want within the constraints of the engine. If its really that important to you you'll take the time to play through once and get all the achievements (which you should be able to do with what ever the devs release). After that modding is on you. If its that important to you you can change the way you budget your personal time.
An odd but apt comparison, except we aren't making an omelette, we are making Faberge' eggs. The last thing we would want is all the nasty organics we would have to remove and clean up before we can start on making our masterpiece.
You are not wrong about belts.
However, I will be within my right to point out the absurdness of using Trains on space platforms: Heat and Vibration.
Both need to be radiated or dampened to keep damage to a minimum.
Trains are apparently able to make logistic requests for fuel (Elevated Rail Blog's Reddit comment by developers).
I am happy with this change even though trains + wagons will never form a formal logistic network, and I wouldn't dream of asking for a logistic network-enabled train/wagon.
I would not use them and get the achievement, then use them exclusively afterward. It is the same dilemma with boilers vs. solar panels (Solaris and Steam all the way Achievement). It's the same deal with Raining Bullets (no laser turret) and Logistic Network Embargo (no active provider, buffer, requester logistic chests).
I have 100% achievement with Factorio, and Mass Production 3 (producing individual electric circuits up to 20 million) was the last one earned only because it is a long-grind that doesn't suit my gameplay style.
IE: I use boilers once all the way to Rocket Launch, then use boilers long enough to unlock solar panel manufacturing large-scale and switch over in subsequent campaigns.
Same for the other similar achievements previously mentioned.
Are you familiar with the spiral vs waterfall software lifetime development cycle model? Just out of curiosity.
The idea is to get an early example or sample out to active/potential customers as quickly as possible to get early feedback in order to tweak minor things like this to improve the end result. Before too many features are tied into this one thing, it would require a massive re-factoring/overhaul to change.
WUBE has indicated that they are planning to release a beta, which will likely use the recently done/released space platform construction animation.
The earlier they are aware of the constructive feedback, the better chance they can act on it. Wait too long, and they might say a few years after Space Age came out: 'We are not going to change or fix it' for any reasons they might have.
It seems that you missed the nuance of what I meant.
Let's say that there is a 'philosophy' spectrum for video game developers.
On one side of the spectrum, developers develop patches/DLCs/expansions without any regard to potentially already existing mods.
On the other extreme of the same spectrum, developers might look to what the community is doing with mods and, for whatever reason, will not develop anything that could overlap with what modders can do or existing mods.
WUBE and Bethesda exist on the same extreme of this spectrum but for a subtle different reasons/rationale with the same end-result.
annnd we are back to mostly hair splitting on things you don't want and ignoring those same nits on things you do like.
This is Factorio. We have magic belts that don't vibrate or produce heat even though they have perpetual motion. Factorio trains are also magical. You can fit several in your pocket and all you have to do is add air to get a full sized train. They burn coal, solid fuel, rocket fuel, and nuclear fuel (but oddly enough not liquid petroleum products when the vast majority of non-electric trains burn diesel). They come to an instant stop when the tracks end and don't derail or suffer any damage. They don't produce heat, they don't vibrate (or the top tier fuels would vibrate them to pieces), and they only require maintenance when damaged by a collision or an attack. Vibration and heat can be hand waved in the same way that perpetual motion belts are.
As far as software development models go I am aware, though the waterfall euphemism is a not completely accurate word to use for what was called top down programming when I was programming (and I have done my share of trying to patch bad code especially that written by someone else with out annotations or notes.)
I read FFF #366 and every thing I can glean from what has been posted, the devs are top down programmers. They are a small team working on what to most other studios would be a small project. Every thing that I know about them screams "waterfall method." Their business model is classical and so is their programming and they have turned out a top notch game. Trying to change development models midstream would be as big a disaster as changing programming languages mid stream is. The devs have been working on the expansion for 2 years now without any player input except what is on reddit, discord, and their own forums. I'm sure they have gone through all of it and included those things that the majority of players are interested in provided it also conforms to their vision for the expansion. Their alpha tests have all been internal and I suspect that their beta tests won't expand too far beyond internal. I doubt there will be an open beta of any kind as indicated by the lack of pre-sales or a public test branch. Their previous development was crowdfunding > playable alpha > early access > release. Since they have the funds to develop, a pre-sale / early access / fund raising phase to raise development capital isn't needed. We will likely only see FFFs and then a release.
Most of the frame work has been done all ready. What they appear to be working on is animations, graphics, and polish. Anything that isn't all ready part of their vision (or easy for them to add midstream) probably won't get included and will be left to modders or as patches after release of the expansion.
With all that in mind I prefer to not jog their elbows. There are other players that are as anxious as I am to get our hands on the expansion. It looks pretty good so far. I'd really hate for them to delay release any more than usual for them just to try to add a feature or 2 that only a few people want that is likely easy to mod in.
They are building the frame. I'll add the furniture and decor for my play throughs.
You cannot reconcile that my opinion is constructive criticism or feedback.
Talking of splitting hair, I am certain that you took the heat and vibration comment in the wrong way.
In space, when something generates vibration energy (walking, noise, train moving, construction, fuel/oxidizer engine firing off, other highly-energized events, etc...), that energy has to go somewhere to dissipate, usually as damaged parts.
The heat from the Train burning fuel has to be radiated off. Otherwise, it will build up inside of the Train until it ceases to be a Train.
You are missing two blogs that indicate they are way past that stage of internal-only development.
Source: https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-367
Source: https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-373
The near-done with step 5 FFF-373 blog was posted back in August.
By the time step 7 (Factorio 2.0) come around, it will be too late and they would have moved on to another expansion or post-release support. We are currently in between the early part of step 6 (feedback and tweaking) and conclusion of step 7 (release).
I didn't misconstrue your comment on heat and vibration. I'm talking about in game mechanics that are used in Factorio not IRL physics. You are conflating the 2 things which is where your disconnect is coming from. I'm talking about the game Factorio. The devs have hand waved physics for game play in most instances. You are trying to justify your asks based on something the devs do not typically consider since they are trying to make a playable and enjoyable game that has some elements of real world physics instead of strictly adhering to IRL physics whether currently in use, experimental, or theoretical.
Factorio trains and belts are physic defying. You can't seriously be debating real world physics as a game mechanism in one instance without doing the same for all other instances and vice versa. The belts and trains in game don't produce heat or vibrations because heat and vibrations are not modeled in game for trains, belts, or anything else that doesn't use steam (and even those don't model vibration), they don't require maintenance / replacement from ordinary use because they never wear out, and they work in game in ways that defy real world physics.
You are trying to argue your asks with me (instead of the devs) using the fallacy of false equivalency.
I didn't miss the development steps FFFs. (I'm disabled, not stupid.) That's why I have been saying that development for new asks is long over. They aren't asking for feedback or requests for new material. They are asking for feedback on what has all ready been developed. Its not a "do we need to add drones on space platforms?" Its a "we will not be adding drones to space platforms, we are asking for feed back on the belt system that we have all ready developed for the space platforms so that we can make minor changes to the belts, if needed, that make sense for our vision of the expansion, before release.
The outside testers they included for beta testing were likely people like Katherine of Sky or Nilaus and you can tell from the text that there were very few of them.
You are asking them to add something that may (or may not) take weeks or months of additional programming/development for space platforms and to reverse a decision that they have all ready made. What you want them to add was likely decided against in step 1 or 2 (ie: over a year ago) of their planning phase long before they asked for feedback from players. This all goes back to what I have been saying all along. If you want drones on platforms you'll have to mod them in using the generous tools the devs have provided, use a mod that someone else will write to do that which probably won't match your vision, or create, develop, and market your own factory building game so that it is exactly the way you want it.
It is constructive because the space platform animation and theme look out of place among other in-game technologies development. OP in this thread and several others on the WUBE forum have already pointed out this issue.
I will emphasize this point: I am not alone in thinking this, and WUBE could have done it better, regardless of your thoughts about my feedback.
This line of thinking has gone too far out of context.
I wrote this comment in a way that doesn't ask for the inclusion or exclusion of Train purely based on IRL physics.
Instead, the main issue is the theme and disconnection between launching a rocket (Factorio 1.X in-game point of view from the engineer) and Type IV Civilization Grey-Goo or Nanites technologies.
I understand making a concussion for the sake of fun gameplay (Examples: unpowered convey belt and not simulating everything about Train physics in-game). Still, as a construction drone in space, it will not take anything away from the space platform puzzle, as we established several posts ago. There is no such concussion to be found here by WUBE.
Huh? Are you saying WUBE has finished with step 6 (feedback and tweaking)? That we are about to have a release date sooner than WUBE's projection?
This part of the comment feels disingenuous and moves the goalpost instead of realizing that the time to provide feedback is between now and release. I am getting the vibe of "you can't give WUBE feedback ever," which may not be intended by your comment, but regardless, I end up feeling that way.
With that out of the way, I might find this valuable dialogue as a means to improve my feedback proposal. From an outsider's perspective?
Now, we are moving into my background: Software Programming.
If WUBE decides to do this, there will be a new Sprite for the item itself and a placed Sprite/animation for the Space Drone.
The Sprite for the Space Drone itself part is partially optional as the alternative WUBE could merge the space construction drones into the already existing Space Platform Hub and only spawn the current construction drone with modifications (no fan, burst of flames, or quarks).
Code for launching drones to do tasks already exists for Roboports, and the Space Platform Hub drone slots, optional, will be restricted to this new third drone (the same kind of restriction that blocks players from inserting iron ore into Train fuel slots).
Performance costs are trivial as the construction drone is only ever going to spawn at Space Platform Hub and find a straight line to fly from A to B and then B back to A. From everything I know of the Space Platform Puzzle gameplay and content, both A and B locations are deterministic and will not change on the fly.
Meanwhile, you will have at least five megabases (Nauvis plus four other non-Nauvis worlds), with thousands of drones flying back and forth at each location in a non-deterministic way.
Video game developers re-using assets in this manner is not without precedent. I know a video game where the developers took existing code/assets for missiles and made carriers/fighters possible in this game.
The nice thing about that was point defense could understand both missiles and fighters as hostiles and shoot at both with minimum change to the codebase.
It will not take WUBE weeks or months to re-use existing codes. The risky part is the art assets to be created for the space construction drone, and even then, that is a small ask as it seems that most art and assets are done at this point.
What is the artist going to do while WUBE polishes and tweaks the expansion game?
You will find out that several others have pointed out that they "dislike new ghosts because they dislike blue colour". Hardly a constructive criticism. Just because an opinion is shared does not mean it's constructive.
One idea of a constructive criticism would be to
1. Allow for other opinions. So far your stance seems to be "me and a few people dislike it, so it is bad and could be done better". In the meantime you never provided any justification to why "it's bad and could be better" outside of "for me X is more important than Y" and "few other people think like me". Well, everything creative made ever has people who have different vision and would do things differently. That does not make for constructive criticism, it's actually the exact opposite.
2. Adjust for the consequences of your request. You are asking to scrap their vision and replace it with yours, as well as scrap work done so far and do new tasks. The justification for that would need to be pretty solid, and "I feel like" is not that.
3. Be honest about bigger picture: there is many more voices speaking out about how much they love the animations and how it makes them re-live old-style RTS games than those who complain. So how come these voices are unimportant, but the opponents you consider a valid argument for your idea "being better"?
4. Be honest 2, Electric Boogaloo: the whole "doesn't fit the technology" argument is kind-of ridiculous on the face of it. For one, plenty of weird, sci-fi tech already in game, like beacons. Or like construction drones. And this is the thing that kills me - you are asking for a replacement of automated construction scaffolds with automated construction drones because... the first ones are too high-tech? Isn't it the other way around? By your very argumentation, shouldn't you be promoting the more bulky, non-mobile construction scaffolds over nano-tech drones carrying massive self-building
buildings in tiny, capsules?
Of course, as part of typical constructive criticism, you can always accuse me of being a provocateur instead :)
I didn't move goal posts and I didn't say they were done with step 6, that is something you have assumed for some reason. They are on step 6 (possibly the very beginning, I have no more inside info than you do). They are seeking input on the content they have programmed not thoughts on the things they specifically decided to exclude. That's not constructive its a distraction. Having managed a project in the past I can tell you exactly how I handled such proposals.... they went straight into the circular file. If you are insistent on making a proposal to people that are over busy and have too much on their plates all ready keep it extremely short and to the point. A several page proposal will just be used to hold up the short leg of someone's desk.
Oddly enough software programming is also in my background. I started programming in the punch cards days and I did a fair share of hand coding in machine language among other things.
If it is really so easy (and you and I both know you are exaggerating and just how much) for the devs to add, then by that same token if you are an uber programmer that completely understands every thing the devs would be required to do to add this for you it shouldn't be at all difficult for you to add it yourself as a mod. No need for the devs to add in something that is so easy to mod in. You can play unmodded to get all the new achievements and then mod and play how you like.
As far as what the artists would be doing, I don't work for WUBE so I don't know for certain what they would be doing (other than working on the final animations that we know for certain they are doing) but I know that people in small studios wear multiple hats. The artists are likely also programmers and vice versa. The studio isn't large enough to have people that do only one or 2 tasks.
So we have come full circle. Its either so easy to add that the devs will leave it to modders so they can concentrate on the things they need to do that modders can't or its impossible to add because the devs didn't include the ability to add it in the engine (like train bridges in 1.0) or they made a design decision (which we know is certain) to exclude them and it may be difficult or impossible to add them, in which case you might be able to get them for Faactorio Intergalactic v3.0.
It is never too premature, or in some rare cases too late, to give constructive criticism of art or animation.
In fact, it is part of the normal process in video games to go through multiple iterations of art assets before settling on one. Take the Starcraft as an example linked below, especially the neon and ugly Warcraft 1 art-style screenshot, which is almost unrecognizable as an early prototype of what would eventually become Starcraft on release.
https://www.unseen64.net/2008/04/07/starcraft-pc-prototype-beta/
There are untold numbers of video games with concept art book that you can look at to see how art change directions over time.
No, you implied it because you, quoted below, said that WUBE would not accept any Feedback at this point in time, which means they are not in step 6 (Feedback and tweaking) or done with it, which, as far as I know, it is not the case.
Nothing new that I don't already know.
I made a very brief summarization of several constructive criticisms (space platform construction is not the only one, by the way, with issues) in FIVE whole paragraphs and 299 words in a submission. It is not visible to you and others and I am fine with that.
I sent this a while ago, and this is the first time I have mentioned it here.
I am not exaggerating. I work with programs and fellow programmers at my workplace. The most challenging and longest part is to build something from scratch using no reused codebase.
When there are similar codes that developers can reuse, then it takes consideration less time. The same is also conversely true of hotfixes as they are not building new functions from scratch but instead modifying something already existing.
I spoke about this part earlier, but I will repeat it because it is still valid and relevant.
WUBE Developer did a full playthrough, and it took a non-small group of developers, twelve, who knew their own game well to complete the game in several days. I am good at playing Factorio, but not that good to keep up with a multiplayer group of developers.
Source: https://factorio.com/blog/post/fff-370
I would have to put up with it for longer because I would have to take several full vacation weeks or more to grind Space Age to finish up achievements, and create a mod from scratch using non-existent art skills.
All of this is my way of saying that your suggestions are unreasonable.
I am not interested in creating such a mod unless you offer to pay an artist or two to develop assets and sound effects to complete this hypothetical mod.
WUBE is a larger studio than you think.
From WUBE's About Us website: https://factorio.com/game/about
They have nine people working right now with graph assets: One Art Director, One Graphic Designer, Six 3D artists, and one concept Artist.
How can I create something as good as what nine professional artists can do in less time, let's say a year, and match the quality of the Space Platform sprite and construction animation?
I implied nothing. You made assumptions (again). Having managed a project I know what kind of input is being looked for this far along in development.
and what response did you get? None? Circular filed. We'll consider it? Politely circular filed.
OK uber programmer which is it? Assets can be reused and it won't take long (ie: a modder could do it) or your ask is a scratch build that will take the entire development team? Either way it can be excluded because it can be done by a player out side the team as a mod or it will throw the development schedule off to add something they decided they weren't going to do.
Why are you in such a hurry? Even if you can only play a couple hours a week you can still complete a few plays a year. That's what I had to do when I was working 60 hour weeks. I have every one of the Civilization games but I don't even have 100 hours on Civ III because it was released at that time. When I finally had more free time Civ IV was all ready out and it was a better game but I could still play Civ III if I wanted. Heck Civ VI has been out for 7 years now and I still occasionally play a game of Civ IV.
I hear you about non-existent art skills. The closest I come to art is a drafting board. High res graphics aren't required for a game play loop to be good. In fact there are lots of mid or lower games that have awesome graphics but they are bad because the game play loop is awful. By the same token there are games out there (even today) with huge followings that have low res graphics. Star Dew Valley, Minecraft, and Rim world come to mind. Any graphic you make for a mod of your own can be what ever you want. No one else has to see it or you can do what I did and make friends with an artist that doesn't know how to program. Let your friend make the sprites and icons and you can do the programming and you can share the finished mod. My college art friend wanted to make a 3d motion sculpture for a final project but didn't know how to make it work. I did the engineering for him and he did all the graphics and visuals for one of my final projects. Some of the hottest games in history were done in 8 bit color because that was all that was available then but programmers squeezed every bit of game play out of what was available.
That's what it comes down to isn't it? You want WUBE to program something specifically for you and perhaps a few others without increasing the cost of the end product but that's not how a for profit business (even one that is as little interested in profit as WUBE) works. They will still have to pay everyone for the hours they put in on it and the more overtime they have to work the less time they get to spend with family or they have to raise the price and then everyone that buys the game subsidizes a feature that only you and a few other people want. Since they all ready have a workable space platform I'll pass, thanks.
I will pretend that you didn't say that because I did not punching down on anyone throughout the thread, much less you.
I have been in early access, beta, and other similar situations where they took feedback and changed the gameplay and art assets multiple times later than where WUBE is in development right now.
Now, unironically, you are making an assumption here.
I did not say if I got a reply or not. For all you know, I did get a response.
You are taking an extreme example, "the entire team" to make something. That is not what I said.
I said that WUBE has multiple artists on its team and can produce multiple high-quality art sprites and animations with years of experience.
Yet, you asked me to do something as a first-time modder without the skill set to do it.
Where did I say that I was in a hurry?
My issue here is that you are expecting me to work simultaneously as a modder in my free time and play Factorio: Space Age when it comes out.
On top of that, I would have to learn how to create high-quality sprite art. That is three things competing for my free time.
I grew up on older video games, which is one reason I don't need high graphic fidelity for a game to be fun.
I can do the programming, assuming I would create such a mod. I do not have the skill set to make the sprite art.
I know what I can not do with sprite art better than what I can do.
Even then, if I made such constructive criticism to WUBE, I expect them to know when it is healthy to crunch over time and when not to. Developers at WUBE are working adults.
Telling me not to make constructive criticism based on an unrealistic expectation of how much work and time it would take WUBE developers is just that. Unreasonable.
If you had gotten the reply you wanted you wouldn't still be posting here. Pretty easy to guess it was either a no answer or a flat out no.
I'm not asking you to do it. If you want them that badly you'll have to mod them in yourself or hope someone else does. I'm going to be using the belts. Even if someone mods them in I'll still be using the belts. I don't need bots on platforms to enjoy the expansion. If I wanted bots on platforms I'd mod them in. I'm still in contact with my artist friend from college and he plays Factorio. He'd do the art work except he doesn't need bots on platforms either.
I don't live in Germany and there are no German restaurants nearby. If I want sauerbraten I have to spend the 5 days it takes to make it. There is no place in the USA that distributes quark. If I want Quarkbällchen I have to take the day it takes to make the quark myself. When I want those I make them myself. If space age won't be fun for you until you have bots on platforms you'll have all the time that you would have been playing to program and take art classes.
Perhaps you could make friends with an artist that plays Factorio if bots on platforms are a must have for you. The devs have all ready made a system to move items on platforms, you just don't like it. That is criticism but it isn't constructive. Demanding what you want when you know that the devs made a design decision to exclude it is... unreasonable.
Good luck to you on your crusade.
The lack of robots did spur some discussion. Enough so that it became a topic added to the next FFF (#382). The "just appear" aspect seemingly was also a topic, probably from the image sequence for the building of the cargo bays in the FFF. Their response, or clarification was simple.
In either their subReddit or on Discord they also said that it was going to be something like a scaffolding and that it was not going to be a unique one for each entity. I don't recall if they mentioned the work that would involve, or if I just understood that a generic version was the answer to keeping the graphics work within reasonable bounds.
They've also made an interesting tad bit of information about the player on the platform.
The interesting part is 'safely strapped into the platform hub.' A strapped in engineer is not going to moving about on the platform much, or at all. Seems to explain why everything will be done via the remote view.
So, here's what we know:
Here's what we can surmise:
You (singular or plural) did, in fact, not establish that bots would not take anything away from the space platform puzzle. Further, WUBE has made it simple to understand why they don't have bots on the platform - and it has nothing to do with any level of science, science fiction, physics, or even coding limitations, Not even as a UPS consideration. It was a considered and deliberate choice about gameplay.
They made it quite clear that the reason for not using bots on the platform was because they wanted it to be a puzzle to solve with belts. They even doubled down on that by also not allowing chests (ibid.) and by requiring that the inventory be accessed directly from the hub, no matter how many cargo bays are attached.
As an extra point, they see the puzzle of the platform as a minigame. When dealing with the stated requirement that the platform could not have open space in the tiles (no doughnut-shaped platforms
The part about the platform weight is based on the plan to have the speed of the platform based on the platform's weight. No mention was made of calculating the cargo weight as part of determining the speed, only for rocket launch capacity. Again, the aspect of a minigame, which requires rules.
All put together, no matter how much feedback they do get asking for bots on the platform, I just do not see it as a possible future for the game. Not even in any version after 2.0, such as 2.1 or 3.0. Not even in 7.0 if it ever goes that high.
Worse, for those wanting the bots, I'm going to speculate that they've actually locked it down so that mods cannot add bots/drones to the platform, or add chests, vehicles, or circumvent any of the other restrictions they've placed on the platforms. It is rare for WUBE to take such a stance, perhaps even this would be the first, I'm not up on what gameplay choice restrictions they have placed on mods if any.
Not a single post you've made in this thread is feedback. Whether you intended it to be or not. Feedback has to be given "back" to someone, not passed on to others. The devs are not looking for feedback here - and as far as I can tell don't even read anything here. As an adult who's claiming a decent amount of logical background, I presume you are able to follow basic instructions.
The ending of every recent FFF has a very simple, clear, and direct statement:
This is followed directly with three buttons to make it easy to find these "usual places":
The "Discuss on our forums" is a link to the forums on the Factorio web site, not to the forums on Steam. The first two buttons are even directly linked to the topic specific to the given FFF, avoiding the issue of trying to find the correct thread in Reddit or on the forums.
Choosing to post "feedback" here is pointless, as feedback. I'm sure there is some other point, internalized in some manner, yet it clearly is not feedback, no matter what you claim.
What you may have posted, wherever you posted it, is probably not 'constructive' at all. Including ideas of how it could be changed, or improved, while helpful in constructive comments, are neither required nor definitive.
If, even once, you mentioned how you or others feel that the objected to thing is wrong, you've slipped into 'destructive' criticism. Constructive criticism is always about how to make something, some process, some performance, or some person better. It is never, ever, about what someone else, least of all the "speaker", prefers, likes, dislikes, wants or does not want. If you mentioned that others agree with you, you are then, also, brigading, which is much worse than merely giving destructive feedback.
This, in itself, is a rather interesting admission. First, it seems to show that you do actually know where to give feedback, thus destroying any claim to your posts here being 'feedback'. Second, it shows how you are attempting to garner more support for your birgading, both by looking for others who support your position, and perhaps to get others involved in similar 'feedback' posts here and elsewhere. Of course it also raises the question in my mind of why you bothered to post anything here, and why, now, you're claiming such a submission.
Unless you have access to the source code and also know how the developers work on their projects, from first-hand knowledge, you cannot make this claim with any validity. Worse, you seem to fail at reading comprehension.
Somehow that seems counter to the claim that "it seems that most art and assets are done at this point."
While the devs polish and tweak the game and code the artists will be working to replace all the concept art placeholders and finish all the 'work in progress' they have. As most of the art in the FFFs has already been admitted to being concept art, someone has to convert that into the sprites and images for the production art. I mean, what else would you expect the artists to do, pour coffee?
Okay.
Ding. Ding.
You can return to pretending you have the answers and trading blows with the other user.
Posturing and protestations may proceed.