Tier 3 blueprint maker - only 6x6. Devs, it`s a joke???

[serega_morozov]

IMHO, altrough you disable modding support (and add 20x20 and bigger makers), making high-tier blueprints in T3 maker is boring and disappointing(( IIt`s too small, maybe T2 should be 6x6, and T3 - little bigger, i think, 10x10 would be adequate size

[curtyuiop]

Is your organization a joke?

[Goblin]

Originally posted by JustSmile:

Originally posted by Goblin:

Having to place one thing and then connect up to 5 belts, per instance of blueprint, still is ridiculous amounts easier than having to place every object separately, line up splitters and/or pipe junctions, then connecting ALL of them.
You're whining about something that only takes away 90% of the work. First world problem much?

Shush. The point of blueprints in factory automation games is to remove tedious and boring pieces of the game (repeatedly building the exact same thing over and over and over and over again), not to make them a bit less tedious. It's not a first world problem, it's a failure of game design.

It does remove tedium. If your income gets lowered by 90%, will you also argue no one removed any income? Feel free to send that amount my way, in that case.

[JustSmile]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Originally posted by JustSmile:

Shush. The point of blueprints in factory automation games is to remove tedious and boring pieces of the game (repeatedly building the exact same thing over and over and over and over again), not to make them a bit less tedious. It's not a first world problem, it's a failure of game design.

It does remove tedium. If your income gets lowered by 90%, will you also argue no one removed any income? Feel free to send that amount my way, in that case.

Making up arbitrary percentages don't make your arguments any better, or the feature less of a failure.

[Goblin]

Originally posted by JustSmile:

Originally posted by Goblin:

It does remove tedium. If your income gets lowered by 90%, will you also argue no one removed any income? Feel free to send that amount my way, in that case.

Making up arbitrary percentages don't make your arguments any better, or the feature less of a failure.

Worst case for blueprints is a single manufacturer in a mk. 1 blueprint.
Placing it by blueprint: 1 click to place, 5 clicks to connect belts, 1 click to connect powerline. Total 7.
Placing it manually: 1 click to place, 4 clicks to place splitters, 1 click to place a merger, 5 clicks to hook those up to the machine, 5 clicks to hook them up to the previous not-blueprinted machine, 1 click to place a power input, 2 clicks to connect the power to the machine and previous powerline. Total 19.

You can argue you only have to place a power connector every X instances, but you also wouldn't be able to place the splitters with just 4 clicks unless you place them all flat on the floor and clip the belts through each other. In reality you'd also be using lifts, placing multiple splitters to elevate the final ones, deleting the scaffolding splitters, etc.

So in this absolute worst case, vs. perfectly optimized (and very ugly) manual placement, it's a reduction of 63.2%. And with a mk. 3 blueprinter you can of course double the efficiency. For something like a smelter array it's 4 clicks vs. something like 116 for a 16 smelter two sided array - not even using verticality to double it. That's 96.6% less clicks. And we're only considering number of clicks here, not the amount of effort it takes to aim each of those clicks.
I'm not making up anything arbitrary. The only failure here is your ability to argue.

[Man's Best Friend]

It's always been interesting how the mentality about official blueprint support from some people has been "if I can't place an entire mega factory, the function is completely useless." It's all or nothing with them.

[GobboKirk]

Originally posted by Man's Best Friend:

It's always been interesting how the mentality about official blueprint support from some people has been "if I can't place an entire mega factory, the function is completely useless." It's all or nothing with them.

No matter how many foundations they added it would end up with someone wanting more and being just as dramatic.
If it's super important than wait for modding, not worth freaking out over.

[joe_schmoe_gamer]

It sounds like some want the blueprint big enough to make an entire one-click factory. Why even play the game if you want that much automation. Blueprints make creating manufacturing lines easier but it was never intended to do all the work for you. Creation is part of the process. Take that away and the player is just a click machine.

[Verios44]

Originally posted by joe_schmoe_gamer:

It sounds like some want the blueprint big enough to make an entire one-click factory. Why even play the game if you want that much automation. Blueprints make creating manufacturing lines easier but it was never intended to do all the work for you. Creation is part of the process. Take that away and the player is just a click machine.

Its because everyone wants Satisfactory to be 3D factorio. Instead of Satisfsctory being ... Satisfactory.

[serega_morozov]

Originally posted by joe_schmoe_gamer:

It sounds like some want the blueprint big enough to make an entire one-click factory.

I dont mean that I need a such big thing, but - I played SF since update 3, and now i just want to try something unusual, like subterranean tunnels for trains (yep, I know, someone say this is cheat or game mechanics abuse). In update 8 I was fed up with railwaays, and just want minimize trains logistics. And T3 10x10 should be most suitable to build tunnel block blueprint instead of 6x6

[JustSmile]

Originally posted by joe_schmoe_gamer:

It sounds like some want the blueprint big enough to make an entire one-click factory. Why even play the game if you want that much automation.

The grand question, "why do you want automation in a game about automating tedious tasks". Maaan, I WONDER why in the world would people want to automate boring and repetitive parts of gameplay and focus on the interesting, fun, and challenging bits. I hope the scientists will one day figure out the answer.

Originally posted by joe_schmoe_gamer:

Blueprints make creating manufacturing lines easier but it was never intended to do all the work for you. Creation is part of the process. Take that away and the player is just a click machine.

....Yes. Letting the player focus their attention and spend most time on designing layouts, building interesting structures, exploring the map, on planning their factory and solving the emergent puzzles factory automation games create will cause them to turn into a click machine. Not spending hours upon hours placing the next 600 generators for their power needs in the exact same way over and over and over again, then piping and wiring them all up by hand while falling asleep. That's the part that totally does not turn the player into a clicking machine.

[JustSmile]

Originally posted by Goblin:

Originally posted by JustSmile:

Making up arbitrary percentages don't make your arguments any better, or the feature less of a failure.

Worst case for blueprints is a single manufacturer in a mk. 1 blueprint.
Placing it by blueprint: 1 click to place, 5 clicks to connect belts, 1 click to connect powerline. Total 7.
Placing it manually: 1 click to place, 4 clicks to place splitters, 1 click to place a merger, 5 clicks to hook those up to the machine, 5 clicks to hook them up to the previous not-blueprinted machine, 1 click to place a power input, 2 clicks to connect the power to the machine and previous powerline. Total 19.

You can argue you only have to place a power connector every X instances, but you also wouldn't be able to place the splitters with just 4 clicks unless you place them all flat on the floor and clip the belts through each other. In reality you'd also be using lifts, placing multiple splitters to elevate the final ones, deleting the scaffolding splitters, etc.

So in this absolute worst case, vs. perfectly optimized (and very ugly) manual placement, it's a reduction of 63.2%. And with a mk. 3 blueprinter you can of course double the efficiency. For something like a smelter array it's 4 clicks vs. something like 116 for a 16 smelter two sided array - not even using verticality to double it. That's 96.6% less clicks. And we're only considering number of clicks here, not the amount of effort it takes to aim each of those clicks.
I'm not making up anything arbitrary. The only failure here is your ability to argue.

No, you're trying to argue that it's fine for the feature to fail because it only fails partially. I guess that's just a completely different perspective, but as far as I care blueprints in Satisfactory are its worst executed mechanic and an afterthought to the game. Sure, they could be WORSE, but that's not endorsement. That's just deodorant sprayed on poo.

[Maehlice]

Originally posted by JustSmile:

It's not a first world problem, it's a failure of game design.

Since only 1st world countries are out there designing and playing video games ... 1st world problem, lol.

[Fenix]

Failed no
Flawed yes, mostly due to the lack of vertical nudge, and the way placement works.
The belts, pipes and Rails not attaching is a mild annoyance. Power I don’t expect to snap.
However they still help me speed up the process, I have blueprints for 27 smelters, 12 constructors, 12 Foundries, 4 refineries…. Etc…
Place them run the belts and pipes and connect power, and move to the next part of my factory.

[TH3R4BB!T]

Actually, 6x6 is kind of a lot of space (coming from AE with only the 4x4). For a fuel generator setup it is big enough, but for a Nuclear setup it is a bit to small indeed

[Sanddrinker]

The blueprint system seems to be an afterthought, perhaps added reluctantly only after community pressure. The blueprint designer has many bugs and placing blueprints has many bugs. If we knew how much effort it would be for the devs to properly implement blueprints maybe we wouldn't have pressured them for it, since the game has other issues that they haven't had time to get around to.