Friday Facts #224 - Bots versus belts

[Tekky]

I have not read all 44 pages, but from what I have read so far, I find the suggestions to nerf bots by making them cost additional maintenance the best solution.

This maintenance cost must be more than just "free" electrical power, it must cost actual resources, so that the costs can actually hurt the player if ignored. For example, one could make it so that bots require batteries not only when building them, but also in order to maintain them. This would also be realistic, because in real-life, even rechargable batteries must be exchanged from time to time.

For example, let's say that the transportation of every item will, on average, cost one iron plate.

In that case, most players would not want to transport large amounts of iron or copper plates with bots, because, in that case, the transportation costs would be just as high as the value of the transported item, which would effectivly double the production costs.

However, for transporting small amounts of items, such as expensive end-products which already required 200 iron/copper plates to produce, nobody will not care if the transportation of the item will cost an additional iron plate, since that would only be an insignificant price increase. Most players will prefer to pay this slight price increase, if it saves them the space requirement of an additional belt going through half their base.

That way, bots would no longer be overpowered, but still very useful. Most megabases would use belts for transporting large amounts of items (especially ore, plates, green circuits, barrels) and would use bots for transporting small amounts of expensive end-products, such as science packs, destroyer capsules, and possibly also blue ciruits.

An additional reason why most players will not want to unnecessarily use bots anymore instead of belts, is that, the more they use bots, the more battery producing industry they will have to build to maintain these bots.

However, one disadvantage of this suggestion is that delivering iron plates to the player by bots would effectively make these iron plates double as expensive. Therefore, the player will not be able to afford this luxury in the early stages of the game (which would not matter much if logistic bots are only unlocked in the later stages of the game).

I have created my own thread for this suggestion in the "Ideas and Suggestions" sub-forum. If anyone wishes to discuss my idea in-depth, please post in my dedicated thread instead of this more general thread. The moderators (understandably) don't like it when the same discussion takes place in two different places.

[Eketek]

I think that there is a major utility disparity between belts and logistic bots which ought to be addressed. Bots can take items from anywhere to anywhere, with minimal consideration toward design, whereas belts are only able to take items along a single path (routing with combinator-based machines gets a little cumbersome). Using belts to move everything also tends to result in a lot of space taken up by belts which carry very few products.

As a possible solution, I would propose adding a mechanism to make routing and path-finding more accessible for belt-and-inserter logistics: Perhaps "Logistic Node" entities which can be connected to each other to define a logistic network and used [at each node] to provide suitable routing signals for use with inserters. (At the cost of immense complexity, this can be accomplished with combinators, but it would probably work out much better as something which can be cleanly constructed from builtin or modded components)

[Neandertal]

Finally... It only took a week... but I read all 44 pages...
Of course, by the time I finish writing this, I expect a few more posts.

....

Of course, now that I finished with my 2 cents, in only a few hours, a new FFF will be started. But, I do believe that this topic will not die.

This i can really get behind. + all the points.

[vampiricdust]

IMO, the best nerf would hit throughput directly. The idea of limiting one bot to interact with one chest at a time would effectively limit the throughput. I think the time necessary for each interaction should be equivalent to the swinging speed of a fast inserter. With a maximum carrying capacity of 4, this would mean that bots can effectively feed chests that are connected to a fast inserter with a maximum stack size of 3. However, they would come up short of supplying a chest connected to a stack inserter. The way around this would require additional chests and inserters to compensate. And remember, there would need to be more provider chests necessary for bots in the pickup... essentially one provider chest for every requester chest that you need full throughput. The other benefit of this approach is that it does not harm the early game, it will not impact most assemblers until after beacons greatly increase the speeds.

Bot throughput is already limited to the speed of the inserters being used. The only thing this would do is stop bots from being able to deliver large amounts of goods in a single burst. Logistic bots can supply infinite resources, but they only get into assemblers as fast as inserts can go. Faster input is already only achievable by spamming more boxes, out is limited in the same way.

The crux of the belt vs bot problem is people want to build cramped beacon builds which make belts impossible to use. However, all underground belts can pass under a beacon and provide plenty of throughput for any assembler. People who think logistic bots are "overpowered" pay zero attention to the limiting factors and think spamming more bots is the only solution to more "throughput". Throughput is not the problem. The problem is space, but space is imaginary problem people create for themselves and then hate logistic bots for making super tightly packed beacon setups when the same thing can be achieved with belts.

Ultimately, the issue is how many few beacons can be used to give as many assemblers as possible as big of a bonus as possible and still get resources in & products out. Bots trade space outside the build for space savings in these builds. Belts trade space inside the build for their low cost, no maintenance, and consistent throughput. So really, if you want to "balance" bots, you'll have to make their usage take up more space in the build. Limiting chest drop / pick up won't do it, only increasing the size of the chests themselves will. Making chests 2x2 will represent 2 belts worth of input/output, making them along with an inserter push a beacon outside of their range for the assembler. This makes it more "balanced" for what purpose they serve. Cause there really isn't any other issue that matters as much as people think it does.

[bobingabout]

I come back to the factorio forums after 6 months absence and it's the same old debate of bots v belts
Logistic bots are fun, belts are fun, trains are fun.. so what's the problem? Everyone's having fun

bots are replacing belts - so we habe to look what´s more fun.

The most repeated quote from my brother while playing Pokémon: "I can't be arsed with this rigmarole."
Sometimes, you just need something to work, and don't really want to spend the time doing a belt puzzle... Robots are handy for this sort of thing, when you finally unlock them.

[vampiricdust]

The most repeated quote from my brother while playing Pokémon: "I can't be arsed with this rigmarole."
Sometimes, you just need something to work, and don't really want to spend the time doing a belt puzzle... Robots are handy for this sort of thing, when you finally unlock them.

Totally off topic, but your mods are most excellent and well deserved all the respect & love they get... I still get driven crazy by your sadistic ideas on circuit production, but I digress.

This a very good analogy and why the game has the item called Repel. Sometimes, the "fundamental" part of the game becomes so easy and tedious that it IS NOT FUN ANYMORE. Logistic bots are Factorio's (belt} Repel.

[Deadly-Bagel]

I find the suggestions to nerf bots by making them cost additional maintenance the best solution.

It's been said time and time again, maintenance is completely pointless. Either it goes against Factorio's ideal of automation, or it's just a grievance right up until you can automate it at which point it's another set-it-and-forget-it thing to do. It adds nothing to the gameplay (or very little for some I guess), and would incur a pretty heavy performance hit. In the case of Logistic Bots, they're only powerful when you're well into their research and have thousands of them. At that point in the game resources are not an issue.

Try doing a pure no-belts run (no placing any belts at any point in the game) and you'll find out they're already pretty expensive to research, build and maintain. The only way to nerf them would be to hit their effectiveness but doing such a run will also show you they're about where they need to be.

I don't really get what the problem is. The only point they're "too powerful" is right at the end of the game at which point you have a right to be "overpowered". I mean even if belts are more in the spirit of Factorio, at the end of the game you're just dumping down blueprints anyway so it makes no difference.

[svalorzen]

I come back to the factorio forums after 6 months absence and it's the same old debate of bots v belts
Logistic bots are fun, belts are fun, trains are fun.. so what's the problem? Everyone's having fun

bots are replacing belts - so we habe to look what´s more fun.

The most repeated quote from my brother while playing Pokémon: "I can't be arsed with this rigmarole."
Sometimes, you just need something to work, and don't really want to spend the time doing a belt puzzle... Robots are handy for this sort of thing, when you finally unlock them.

This is an excellent point, however I would say that this is a point in favor of modding. When you don't have the time to properly play a game in its entirety you should be allowed to bypass certain parts you don't like. This doesn't mean that the game must be designed with your particular time-constraints/tastes in mind. The game should stand up on its own. If at the 500th playthrough you feel like varying up the experience and concentrate on the parts you like, well that's what modding is for!

[Guardian667]

My friends and me are train lovers. I want to say this first, so it's clear that we are extremely biased. Our bases are big, with huge amounts of materials being processed. Anything we can deliver by train is much better than anything we deliver by belts

We want to build "ordinary" factories, which produce only one or few items (e.g. one factory for all types of inserters). These factories are built with belts and are connected by trains to others (e.g. to deliver inserters to the science pack factory). Beside that, we like to have a "personell supply factory" with stuff like pickaxes, armor, weapons, robot hangars and stuff. Such a station can easily become big, that means there are many assembling machines for the different equipment items. But such a factory doesn't need to produce a huge amount of items, since they are only taken manually by players from time to time. For this purpose we use logistic bots, so that we don't have to connect all these single machines. I think that seems quite a bit more realistic, since a group of robots can bring some materials but don't represent an overpowered large-scale teleporting machine.

For me it's not much fun to generate throughput by bots. I would be fine, if a player should be caused to solve the belt problems if he needs throughput (what i think is the basic fun part of this game) but is also able to set up small production factories by bots. Of course, there are many logistic bot lovers out there and we should keep them in mind.

To sum up I could imagine that logistic bots are a) much more expensive in production and b) can only grab one single item at a time, whereas belts generate a huge amount of throughput. Maybe it's also a discussion point, that any number of robots can be located at a single point simultaneously, which enables the excessive throughput ability of bot networks in the first place.

[PurpleGreen]

after reading many posts , here are my 2 cents.

first i wanna say , we use belts , bots, trains , teleport mod , yuoki assembly machines , belt furnaces and all ( belt furnaces and yuoki machines mainly for fps/ups)

my GF and i are currently playing a deathworld with 1000x expensive technology cost. due to the extreme size we " have to " make use of all item transportation features. the type of transportation is dictated by the item , frequency of transport and distance and importance of delivery.

i would be a shame if any of the current features would be removed. add more features instead. my ideads . ( not only my own but also based on what i've read here and on the forums in general)

compared to belts and trains , bots dont really provide a challenge - and i believe this is what is being reffered to as " not fun "

so let's redesign the bot system...

this concept introduces few new buildings like the cargo bay and redesigned roboports, new bots , new type of concrete and - most important , a whole new (optional) challenge in itself


logistic bot ( air ):
- can fly between between connected roboports.
- can only use buffer chests.
- cannot supply player
- roboports get a new 3 tile wide area for buffer chests the " cargo area".
- very ( as in V E R Y ) high electricity costs
- fast charge ( less than a second ) but low capacity, max 3 roboports range before they need recharge
- different tiers with with tech upgrades for speed,cargo,and charge speed and size.


Tier 1
- 1 tile size
- speed like yellow-red belts ( upgradeable)
- holds up to 4 items (not upgradeable)
- instant loading/unloading
- charges in .5 seconds (upgradable , -10% of the current charge time/upgrade )
- charge capacity ~ 3 roboports range ( upgradeable +1 roboprt each upgrade - max 3 upgrades)
- roboports can charge 20 of them at once

Tier 2 constructed by combining 4 T1 robots and a wooden cargoplatform)
- 2x2 tile size
- blue belt speed
- hold up to a full stack
- loading/unloading at blue belt speed unloading item per item from the cargoplatform)
- charge in 2 seconds
- 2 roboprts range ( upgradeable , +1 /upgrade - max +3)

Tier 3
- 4x4 tile size
- up to rocket fuel train speed
- holds a full chest ( like a cargo wagon)
- load/unload at cargo bay ( like a train station )
- instant load/unload
- charge in ~5 seconds
- 1 roboport range ( upgradeable + 1 range / upgrade - max +3)

Roboports would be able to handle mixed charging , providing 20 charging docks for 20x T1 OR 4x T2 +4x T1 OR 1x T3.

new building :
- Cargo bay 4x4 tiles , needs to touch the 3 tile wide cargo area and functions like a request for loading and active provider for unloading.
can only load/unload 1 t3 robot at a time and needs to be " empty " before the next robot can be unloaded.

- really really high electricity costs due to the roboport itself holding no charge but every charging robot directly drains the power network.
making them an end game competitor to trains but at a very high cost in electricity AND space.

for example a roboport would require a little dedicated poweplant, 10 roboports would already be in the nuclear powerplant range/ a massive(!) battery array. scaling with the amount of bots that need charge at the same time to buffer the power draw.

delivery bot ( air ):
- can fly only in the range of its roboport
- delivery zone maybe the same size as the current construction area
- roboports hold only a small amount of them , like 4-10
- use chests like currently in the game.
- player supply/trash
- fixed speed ( like a yellow belt ?)
- upgrades for cargo size up to full stacks
- no charge time because wireless power ( hence the short range )

construction bot - the same as current construction bot


Crawler bots (ground) : // maybe they could look like wall-e ( there were also the big wall-e versions in the movie ... haha i am amused by myself now ... )


- "safe" move on concrete / solid terrain ( like asphalt roads mod, any type of concrete etc)
- cobblestone , loose stone , dirt etc - all the " loose" ground types damage the bot
- new roboport like a garage to store the bots, must be placed in the logistic area of roboports
- can't cross no-bot zone concrete (new concrete like hazard but different color)
- can't cross belts
- can cross traintracks if concrete path if provided under the rails
- interact with gates like players ( for example gated rail crossings )
- a*-pathfinding , giving concrete a new purpose and interesting challenge
- electric fuel consumption
- charge capacity ~10 roboports or maybe time like 2 minutes of operation before it needs a recharge. if power is low , movement speed is reduced to 10% and " low charge" triggers immediate recharging task

they could also come in tiers

size : 1x1 / 2x3 / 3x5 tiles
cargo: 1 item / 1 stack / 1 chest
fuel : battery ( consumed and need to be reproduced) / accumulator( could be recharged ?) / uran fuel cell
speed: 50% of yellow belt / 100% yellow belt / 150% yellowbelt
duraibility(on loose ground) 100% dmg /50% dmg /10%dmg ( this means that moving on loose ground deals dmg like driving into a rock damages a car)



this way bots would not be a 1-for-all solution. but a whole new logistic challenge , introducing new and interesting ways to plan the factory, removing the overpoweredness from bot, creating a paper rock scissors like scenario when it cpomes to advantages and disadvantages of each system - belts trains and bots.

so far so good

[Visione]

So, I know this is a crazy idea,

I'm just throwing it up for discussion...

What if we give end-game tech a Mutual exclusive choice?

Go into 'Advanced Belt Technology' (irreversible choice):
You will get:

• Express transport belts (incl splitters and underground of course)
• You will be able to get the (limiting) flying robots mentioned in the post (personal + construction)
• Belt loaders for all colors, the once that are secretly already in the game, this to compensate for the power of bots
  • example: https://mods.factorio.com/mods/therax/miniloader (1x1 loaders are better then 2x1 loaders cause they interfere less with beacon placement)

You will not get:

• Requester, Buffer and Active provide chests.
• Both the original Logistics and Construction robots.

Go into 'Advanced Robot Technology' (irreversible choice)
You will get:

• Requester, Buffer and Active provide chests.
• Both the original Logistics and Construction robots.

You will not get:

• Express transport belts (incl splitters and underground of course)
  • So only yellow and red belts will be availble to you.
• Belt loaders for all colors

(most dedicated robot players skip express belts anyway so i think thats where the brake-up should start, you could also buff express belts in this cause if need be)

This does segregate save files and play style, but you can also tie more achievements to it, once that are only achievable in one of the two tech choices. so that there is incentive to try and play both end-games.

At last i wanna add:
Looking at end-game, I don't think robots are overpowered, I think belts are heavily underpowered.
Being overpowered end-game is fun!
you have workend ten's to hundreds of hours to get there.
Being an overpowered factorio engineer is just super awesome!
I would suggest buffing belts rather than nerfing robots.

Or maybe an end-game mutual exclusive tech option is a bad choice, like i said, i opted this only for discussion

[Tricorius]

I’m seeing a lot of proposals to heavily nerf bot throughput (severe item count penalties or forcing bots to line up to deposit a single item at a time).

I would like people to remeber that *if* that ends up being the implemented solution and there is no similar buff to belts the only result is that dense beaconed blocks will simply no longer be possible. (I haven’t tried this yet, but the only other way I can think of getting close to the bot-based builds would be to have undergrounds run underneath beacons and end at the assembler. The belt systems to feed that would be crazy.)

I think it is also important to remember that bots are still limited by inserters. You can’t directly feed or extract items with bots. You have to go through chests, which are bottlenecked by inserters. It isn’t like they completely bypass the rest of the mechanisms in Factorio.

I have seen two primary complaints in the thread:

1 - it is unfair (unfun) to be able to craft anything by stamping down an assembler, power pole, inserters, requester and provider; compared to the more complex (“fun”) belt-based version.

2 - it is overpowered (cheating) to be able to create a densely-packed, beaconed, bot-based assembly block.

(Neither of these arguments make much sense to me, but whatevs...).

Did I miss any other complaints?

[juliejayne]

Last chance to post before the next FFF. Last chance to make the point. Nerfing the bots, though in an ideal world would have been done from the start, cannot be practically done now. Except perhaps my suggestion to give logi-bots a schedule like trains have. But that would probably cause more hassle for the game engine than it was worth. Almost everything else could and would be overcome by players creating more bots and being angry at the devs. Not good option.

So the only option is to find a way to allow the belts to be competitive. Faster and more expensive belts, only partly solve the issue. Crated or palletised goods on belts are also only a partial solution.

To my mind a Teleporting belt option is the only logical solution. OP, not if added correctly. It would require the building of Entry and Exit ports... that could be very costly or reasonable. The total number of such ports could be restricted, perhaps. But at least then belt players could deliver resources to remote Assembler arrays, at similar speed to bots. It would only require 2 new entities for the game the Entry Port and the Exit Port. Less UPS cost

That is my 10 cents worth.

[PurpleGreen]

snip

Or maybe an end-game mutual exclusive tech option is a bad choice, like i said, i opted this only for discussion

i don't like the idea of irreversible choice, especially in a game like factorio...

we, my gf and i , usually play with ridicoulous tech multiplier ( current map is 1000x expensive tech cost) so each science gets a whole own gigantic factory with trains , belts and bots , each used where they give the most advantage .... being forced to decide for one of the systems would take away then fun for me, especially when experimenting.

[PurpleGreen]

Last chance to post before the next FFF. Last chance to make the point. Nerfing the bots, though in an ideal world would have been done from the start, cannot be practically done now. Except perhaps my suggestion to give logi-bots a schedule like trains have. But that would probably cause more hassle for the game engine than it was worth. Almost everything else could and would be overcome by players creating more bots and being angry at the devs. Not good option.

So the only option is to find a way to allow the belts to be competitive. Faster and more expensive belts, only partly solve the issue. Crated or palletised goods on belts are also only a partial solution.

To my mind a Teleporting belt option is the only logical solution. OP, not if added correctly. It would require the building of Entry and Exit ports... that could be very costly or reasonable. The total number of such ports could be restricted, perhaps. But at least then belt players could deliver resources to remote Assembler arrays, at similar speed to bots. It would only require 2 new entities for the game the Entry Port and the Exit Port. Less UPS cost

That is my 10 cents worth.

this would only make the game easier. the game should not become easier, teleport belts would be no-brainer like the current no-brainer bot system.
i believe it would be best to overhaul the bots and give them setup challenges like belts and logistic challenges like trains with loading/unloading

[seePyou]

Stack inserters are imbalanced! Have you ever seen a real factory using mass inserters? Nor have I. Keep the inserters fast, but they should all pick up only one item, not 7 or 3!

[juliejayne]

Last chance to post before the next FFF. Last chance to make the point. Nerfing the bots, though in an ideal world would have been done from the start, cannot be practically done now. Except perhaps my suggestion to give logi-bots a schedule like trains have. But that would probably cause more hassle for the game engine than it was worth. Almost everything else could and would be overcome by players creating more bots and being angry at the devs. Not good option.

So the only option is to find a way to allow the belts to be competitive. Faster and more expensive belts, only partly solve the issue. Crated or palletised goods on belts are also only a partial solution.

To my mind a Teleporting belt option is the only logical solution. OP, not if added correctly. It would require the building of Entry and Exit ports... that could be very costly or reasonable. The total number of such ports could be restricted, perhaps. But at least then belt players could deliver resources to remote Assembler arrays, at similar speed to bots. It would only require 2 new entities for the game the Entry Port and the Exit Port. Less UPS cost

That is my 10 cents worth.

this would only make the game easier. the game should not become easier, teleport belts would be no-brainer like the current no-brainer bot system.
i believe it would be best to overhaul the bots and give them setup challenges like belts and logistic challenges like trains with loading/unloading

Yes it could be a no brainer, but if the costs were carefully managed and restrictions placed, it COULD be balanced.

[PurpleGreen]

Stack inserters are imbalanced! Have you ever seen a real factory using mass inserters? Nor have I. Keep the inserters fast, but they should all pick up only one item, not 7 or 3!

this is not true. factories have sooo many more different robotic arms / cranes etc for single or bultiple item grabbing , placing , moving ....

[olafthecat]

I’m seeing a lot of proposals to heavily nerf bot throughput (severe item count penalties or forcing bots to line up to deposit a single item at a time).

I would like people to remeber that *if* that ends up being the implemented solution and there is no similar buff to belts the only result is that dense beaconed blocks will simply no longer be possible. (I haven’t tried this yet, but the only other way I can think of getting close to the bot-based builds would be to have undergrounds run underneath beacons and end at the assembler. The belt systems to feed that would be crazy.)

I think it is also important to remember that bots are still limited by inserters. You can’t directly feed or extract items with bots. You have to go through chests, which are bottlenecked by inserters. It isn’t like they completely bypass the rest of the mechanisms in Factorio.

I have seen two primary complaints in the thread:

1 - it is unfair (unfun) to be able to craft anything by stamping down an assembler, power pole, inserters, requester and provider; compared to the more complex (“fun”) belt-based version.

2 - it is overpowered (cheating) to be able to create a densely-packed, beaconed, bot-based assembly block.

(Neither of these arguments make much sense to me, but whatevs...).

Did I miss any other complaints?

I believe that bots only should be removed if their is something less 'cheaty' to replace them.
Elevated belts, bridges and lifts could do this?
^ (My Version)
^ (Another Guy's Version)

[Pascali]

You don't like bots? Don't use them. Trains and belts are a unique challenge, that should not be forced on a player.

not possible, cause you have to programm 2 completely different games.