Thank you for "fixing" what the devs just "fixed".

Thank you for "fixing" what the devs just "fixed".

i guess you haven't read the threads where most veteran players were against the change?

Also, some people just want to continue to play old bases

s8472:

It is not that I want to play on an old base. One of the bases I use for testing, in addition to the main base, has 4 plastic, 1 solid fuel, 1 sulfur, 6 rocket fuel, and 2 lube outposts with associated programmed train routes and and logistical networks, tuned for pre-0.17.60 recipe ratios, producing 20 rocket launch per minute and 25 science per minute and lots of of generated pollution that I need for testing of my mods. It is not practical to "fix" a base of this size to accommodate what the developers "fixed".

Without getting into the over simplification of the oil refining issues, which I am against, this release breaks many pre 0.17.60 maps. On top of "fixing" what is not "broken" this patch also breaks all maps with chemical science, requiring a time sink dependent on the maturity of a map.

Regarding the "fix", based on the forums, about 50% of the players were strongly against the the the changes proposed in FF304 and FF305. Only a small minority was for it. Someone when through and figured out what the mod developers point of view was and posted it in the forums. According to him, 100% of the mod developers were against this change.

FuryoftheStars did an excellent job of documenting in consolidating all the proposed changes on the first page for 0.17.60 release on the forums, all in my opinion would of been better for the game.

Hiladdar

No, I did not read that deeply in to the forums, I saw the post on FFF and on the steam patch notes. However, now I am curious as to why the change was made if such a large part of the player base was against the change...
I probably will only ever shrug my shoulders and thank people like Furyofthestars for their work.

Since my .17 base just stopped working, I think this here is a fix.

I can't remember them every doing a complete base-breaking change in a minor version. From .14 to .15 or .16 to .17 you knew that you'd probably be better off starting a new base, because shit was gonna break. But inside .17?

They changed chemical science during an experimental cycle before, from using assembler to mining drill. Then in 0.17 it changed twice again. Not unprecedented.

I expect stuff to break, going one minor version to another such as .16.xx to .17.xx. I do not like stuff breaking to this extent between on a patch to another, such as .17.59 to .17.60. I think some changes, due to their depth and scope should be much better marketed to the players, and implemented after a break point such as a stable release.

Lots of stuff transitioning my .16 to .17 maps was broke, and I was OK with that and still am. I am not OK with similar breakage on a simple patch.

Once 0.17.xx is stable, that is exactly how things will go. For now, it's still Experimental.

We simply forget that due to the extreme stability of the game's releases with the automated testing and strong development principles.

@hiladdar, that literally just sounds like "wanting to play on an old base". Your base is too big/complex to retrofit the changes simply, so you'd rather not deal with the changes for now. That's an acceptable point of view.

Also, I don't like reading that "100% of mod developers were against this change", considering that I am one of those mod developers (albeit a smaller one), and I am 100% all for the change. From what I read of some of those mod devs, the biggest reasons they had against the oil changes were because it would break their mods, requiring a lengthy rewrite to accommodate the changes.

That's just an extension of the "wanting to play on an old base" mentality, which again, is fine. Can't be expected to rewrite the entire mod when you can just revert the change and keep the mod as is.

But arguing against the change being implemented for these reason of not wanting to rewrite/rebuild is where the problem comes in. These are very good changes, smoothing out the difficulty curve, not only for new players, but for players of intermediate skill as well. It seems the only players who don't like the change are those that have spent so many hours building it one way, and don't want to build it another way.

Hey guys, I'm going to lock this thread. I'd rather discussions on the change being good vs bad be on the forums in the threads already discussing it. While I doubt much of anything would come out of the discussions there, I'm sure even less will come out of it here.