Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Discussions Rules and Guidelines
Report this post
(All meant in fun, please take it as such.)
I just think that adding a notebook in game would help with optimization and calculation, for people who don't want to spend their free time doing so much math. The game designers could add features to help players go so far as to build the factory from the ground up on paper before they ever begin laying the foundations.
presently the game flips easily to notepad where i keep notes as needed,
fwiw, i'm not organized enough presently to make diagrams
But it does raise the question, do you really think they'd create something worth the time to implement? I doubt it would tbh. At some point, you're better off just using third-party programs (or a pencil/paper) for your planning.
The only advantage to doing it in game would be the potential for exact dimensions of buildings to be used. Unless it's completely accurate though, so you can identify potential clashes/routing issues, it wouldn't be any better than an alternative outside the game.
End of the day, I can't see it being worth the time to implement such a thing.
I think it would be worth the time to implement considering it's simplicity. The developers could simply begin by adding a tab with the ability to keep text notes and draw free-hand and go from there. Considering the other complex UI's that the developers have implemented (light controls, or the programming of autopilot routes for vehicles for example) I don't think it a particularly difficult prospect to implement a simple notepad and build on it as development continues.
One also has to consider what the design intention of Satisfactory is. I certainly do have alot of fun in-game just building, tearing down and rebuilding. But the game is built around the idea of constructing a complex supply network to fabricate diverse parts.
One of the greatest draws of the game for me is the planning aspect, and how much it encourages the automation of complex systems. In addition to the clear engineering audience that the game panders to. I think that documentation of systems and complex planning is an essential aspect of the game, evidenced clearly by the argument that alot of people are already using pencils and paper IRL to do their planning. So doing this would move the mechanic into a space where people without strong planning acumen could practice their planning skills if they so desired.
Another argument I can think of is the utilization of a map. Do we question that there is a map in game. After all, you can just sketch the terrain of the world on a pencil and paper! of course not, but it helps with the overall immersion of the game, and builds on a part of what makes Satisfactory already great (a diverse, immersive world worthy of exploration and experiencing, remembering, and returning to).
Hence, adding a planner's notebook to the game and developing it along with some of the other features does not seem to me to be too labor-intensive to reject, and I think builds on the thing that drew me to the game in the first place: the ability to plan complex supply and demand infrastructure and optimize steady-state systems. As well as add to the accessibility for people who might not have immediate access to a pencil or paper (believe me, I've been there).
Let me stop you right there. There is not a snowballs chance in hell it would be simple.
For it to have any value at all over, say, loading up MS Paint, it must be accurate. Exact dimensions and building envelopes would be critical if you're building something compact.
And need I remind you that this game also operates in the vertical plane, unlike Factorio? You are basically asking the devs to create a 'simplified' 3D modelling program and implement it.
Where would it even sit in your window? It has to be big enough to be of use, while being small enough to still allow you to see what you're doing.
And as this guy says:
Just one of many reasons people would rather use something external.
A map isn't a comparison. Not to mention the in-game is severely underutilised. The lack of any sort of practical overlays (like train lines, vehicle routes, power lines, discovered nodes) is a much bigger issue in my book.
I somewhat disagree that the system would have to start out that complex, if you look at most sketched process diagrams, whether they extend between floors or not, you're lucky to get a few labelled black boxes with lines passing between them for clarification on material flow. If you wanted to start out that complex, you could use a grid coordinate system with basic representations of each building. You could add arrows to indicate when material leaves a floor or an area and passes to another area. I'm not suggesting any 3D modelling or anything of the sort (you're technically already doing that just building factories!) just basic process diagrams and a place to keep notes, maybe the option to transfer process diagrams to your to-do list resource requirements and the ability to save basic schematics as the feature is developed. You could still keep it in the codex window on it's own tab.
I also disagree with the idea that the map isn't a comparison. The fact that it is underutilized as well is not necessarily an indication of a failed feature. The game is still in early access, and many new content and features are being developed, debugged and improved upon. I believe that the map could be more useful if the developer added a layer of player-built features, and the addition of beacon waypoints. In the same way the notebook could start simple, and be added upon.
Also, not every gamer has a dual monitor, so I don't see what point you can really make there. It goes even further to make the argument that gamers with more limited systems would find the game a little more accessible.
I'm sorry, I think that this is an interesting discussion, but I don't think at all that compared to what the developers have done and are doing in this game, that adding a feature such as a notebook would be a difficult task in comparison.
1. That is exactly my point. Why bother developing an in-game system to plan a factory if it isn't going to accurately use the games models to help you size things efficiently and identify collisions on compact designs? Such a system would be inferior to a pencil and paper, never mind using a whole range of other external software that someone might have available. You're effectively trying to suggest the devs need to re-design a wheel for a system that doesn't warrant that much investment in wheel design.
2. No, the map is not a comparison, nor did I say it was a failed feature. The in-game map is pretty poor in terms of functionality, but if you're going to try and convince me that a person can whip up something by hand that is remotely useful, you're having a laugh. You'd have to be madly obsessed with cartography to even consider such a thing. This being EA and may be developed further really isn't relevant... because yeah, I know it could be. I hope it is too. The map lacks even the most basic functionality beyond contours.
Maybe you could whip up a planning tool that starts out simple and is built up along the way. But it'll never change the fact that creating a map is not something you can easily do outside of the game, whereas a basic planning tool is.
3. That is why I said "one of many reasons". I don't have a dual monitor either (
2. Yes, it absolutely is a comparison, and you said it was a failed feature above by claiming it's underutilized. And I'm still going to make the argument that I believe that many features in the game will see further development as the game is still in early access. And as with the map, if you believe it unnecessary, you're welcome to simply not use the feature.
3. Reinventing the wheel is what every game does! If we didn't want the wheel reinvented, why are we playing satisfactory and not simply uploading the technic pack to a minecraft world and building there?
1. Then we go full circle to the devs effectively having to create a modelling program, requiring a sizeable investment of time (and possibly a different skill set) just to create something that may or may not be useful versus an external program.
I'm not arguing that such a thing wouldn't have its uses, only that it simply isn't worth the time to create it in-game. What you're suggesting is basically a scaled down version of the game, otherwise how could you possibly figure out that it wouldn't operate how you think?
If all you actually needed is a blank sheet of paper with some boxes for process flows and parts/min, it's a lot of effort to replicate it. A nice to have upon release, perhaps, but certainly not worth it before then.
2. Underutilised and failed are two completely different statements. But putting that side, you still fail to grasp the major difference. A map is a given and not something you can knock together outside the game. Notepads/sketchpads and what-not, while useful in some situations, are very much something you can do outside the game.
3. If you're gonna stretch that statement to such an extreme, then perhaps we should've just stuck with Pong?
It is a valid reason for games to not implement certain planning features. If there are ways to do it better outside of the game, trying to add it may just clutter things up. And ultimately, if it isn't better than these external programs, that time will be completely wasted.
You couldn't tweak machine speeds, just basic placement and production flow. Verticality might be a problem, as you'd need a solid foundation to build on, but as long as collision issues were handled in the simulation, that wouldn't be too much of an issue.
Of course this would also mean implementing a feature that is needed already; being able to adjust equipment position after it's placed without rebuilding it, as well as connecting a belt simply by clicking the output and the input, and letting the game figure out how many belt segments it will take.
2. I disagree entirely, a map is not a given, it's simply something that players take for granted in modern gaming. I also disagree that there is a clear distinction between the functional purpose of a map, and a notebook, that is to record pertinent information in a useful manner.
3. That's not a stretch, it's the purpose of games to recreate parts of reality or fiction in a simulated environment! Either way, you're reinventing a concept that has to exist before you implement the game, even in the case of Pong, my friend.
I also disagree with choosing not to implement a feature because players already do it outside of the game. For instance, do RPG's make the players physically heal themselves to heal their character, or hand craft swords to use them in game? Do RTS games make players record their own metrics in real time to help them optimize strategies? Does Civilization make the player keep track of every city and unit on a piece of pen and paper? And if done correctly, I don't think it would be a cluttered mess like you suggest.