Buffer chests supplying requester chests

[AngledLuffa]

If a requester chest has "Request from buffer chests" marked, does that make it lower priority for delivery from passive provider chests than other requester chests? I had requester chests feeding assemblers for Rocket Control set to request from buffer chests, and when the system temporarily ran out of blue chips, they stopped getting any until I unchecked that box, at which point they started receiving goods from passive providers again. However, when the system has a surplus of blue chips, I want them to be able to get goods from buffer chests filled with blue chips as well.

[Bilka]

Please make sure you are on the latest version (0.16.16), there was a bug related to this in some ealier versions.

[AngledLuffa]

I am. Sorry, should have made that more clear.

Is the expected behavior that the requester chests will be at the same priority regardless of whether or not "buffer chest" is marked?

[Jap2.0]

Yes.

[golfmiketango]

Yes.

I agree with Jap2.0 (IIUC: "yes" could mean either thing in context frankly...). I believe that at least some of the time checking the box does cause deprioritization of requesters in 0.16.16 (or at least it did in 0.16.12), as per my bug report.

I'm hoping for clarification about this. Is it a bug? An intended behavior? Or, perhaps the fact that requesters sometimes fulfil from non-buffer-chests at all with that box checked is the bug? Inquiring minds really want to know...

[Edit: edited to be less douche-bag-ish and more clear]

[AngledLuffa]

I will gladly share a save file demonstrating this behavior if it helps.

[Jap2.0]

I believe the intended behavior is that requesters maintain the same priority, they just also request from buffer chests if you let them.

[golfmiketango]

I believe the intended behavior is that requesters maintain the same priority, they just also request from buffer chests if you let them.

This was my original assumption as well. But the way my bug report was so confidently dismissed by Rseding91... I had a moment of doubt. Now that I see that they do in fact fulfil from requesters with the box checked in a glut... well I'm still not sure but I think my post was just misread. Right now, the fulfillment matrix looks like so to me (the "?" means I haven't tried it yet and don't know. N? means I haven't tried but am pretty sure it doesn't for semantic reasons):

Code: Select all

ENTITY                     from PC(shortage)     from PC(glut)       from BC(shortage)    from BC(glut)
=======================================================================================================
buffer                              N                    Y                    N?               N?
requester(checked)                > N <                  Y                    ?                Y
requester(unchecked)                Y                    Y                    N                N

If nobody is looking at this anymore and they are just going to languish, I can think of some ways to exploit it as is. But to me the >emphasized< "N" above seems extremely surprising, counterintuitive and non-useful, so much so that I am pretty sure it's a bug. Also I'm not sure the game is consistent about the emphasized "N". In fact if I had to bet, I'd say the "> N <" should actually be something like ">some of them, persistently, but according to unknown criteria<" but that's just a vague recollection and not a concrete counterexample falsifying the "N" (hence I'm disregarding it as coming from an unreliable source, namely me )

[Jap2.0]

I believe the intended behavior is that requesters maintain the same priority, they just also request from buffer chests if you let them.

This was my original assumption as well. But the way my bug report was so confidently dismissed by Rseding91... I had a moment of doubt. Now that I see that they do in fact fulfil from requesters with the box checked in a glut... well I'm still not sure but I think my post was just misread. Right now, the fulfillment matrix looks like so to me (the "?" means I haven't tried it yet and don't know. N? means I haven't tried but am pretty sure it doesn't for semantic reasons):

Code: Select all

ENTITY                     from PC(shortage)     from PC(glut)       from BC(shortage)    from BC(glut)
=======================================================================================================
buffer                              N                    Y                    N?               N?
requester(checked)                > N <                  Y                    ?                Y
requester(unchecked)                Y                    Y                    N                N

If nobody is looking at this anymore and they are just going to languish, I can think of some ways to exploit it as is. But to me the >emphasized< "N" above seems extremely surprising, counterintuitive and non-useful, so much so that I am pretty sure it's a bug. Also I'm not sure the game is consistent about the emphasized "N". In fact if I had to bet, I'd say the "> N <" should actually be something like ">some of them, persistently, but according to unknown criteria<" but that's just a vague recollection and not a concrete counterexample falsifying the "N" (hence I'm disregarding it as coming from an unreliable source, namely me )

Interesting. If we haven't figuredd this out by this weekend, I can test it then.