Friday Facts #137 - The release scarecrow

[albatrosv13]

deleted

[Tinyboss]

There are many things which I dislike according to it, starting with trains, which is most capable and powerfull transport in the game already, got another huge buff. Add information from another FFF, in which they said they plan to increase amount of slots in carts too (in the future). But I don't want to start a list. What's the purpose anyways. I've already said that I let developers to "ride a ship", and it will be okay.

First off, I like your attitude of trusting the devs. They haven't steered us wrong yet!

As far as buffing trains, I don't think it's a problem. Yes, they're the most powerful transport in the game, but they're expensive (in terms of materials but more importantly player time) and fun, and there's no point in using them until you really need to move all those items. There's nothing wrong with having a "most powerful" thing as long as the less-powerful things have their uses. Is it really desirable that belts and trains be "balanced" so that it's only a matter of opinion which one I should use to move ore from my mines to my smelting facility?

Or maybe I've misunderstood your concern with buffing the "most powerful" transport. If so, I apologize.

[Mikrotherion]

Great news, at least partly. Dunno how I will like the changes to the inserters, but I do like the changes to trains.

[BigD145]

Better train visuals? Excellent. Less trial and error when building.

[SHiRKiT]

Started with an idea to do belt loading/unloading, migrated into inserters so it becomes less confusing to the player, ends up with a clunky inserter and changing all the other existing ones, not giving a replacement for the existing behaviour. Fast inserters are nerfed to a point that's useless in many of the modded builds. I guess we'll need to have a inserter stack size bonus research moddly added to allow modded gameplay again.

I really don't understand how we moved from A to B there.

[Tev]

Morale: extreame throughput in extreame lategame in my personal oppinion, a guy who spent more than 20 hours to read articles, is impossible without belts even in 0.12.

Errr no. Just no.
But for 0.12? It's just bots > belts, period. That's why rapid is good addition.

...
I'm talking about that you need them to connect 2 bot networks.
...
And long story short, those bases can't be done without a relitive use of belts, neither in 0.12, nor in 0.13.

You're not saying why are belts necessary. Or why are belts better than trains for connecting networks? Trans offer much bigger throughput, and they're much easier to set up on scales you talk about. With current inserters belts are just inferior in late game.

[Linosaurus]

Another thing to point is that people may stay at older versions. I saw that in minecraft when microsoft took over. Some people(including me) still stay at versions of pre-microsoft. Mainly because of some mods(modmakers didn't update their mods anymore).

I don't think microsoft is to blame for this. Blame mojang, or the fact the minecraft wasn't exactly designed with modding functionality in mind. Minecraft 1.8, which is apparantly is a *lot* of work to update a mod to, was released September 2, 2014. The rumors of a microsoft purchase came a week or so after that, unless my google-fu missleads me.

As far as buffing trains, I don't think it's a problem. Yes, they're the most powerful transport in the game, but they're expensive (in terms of materials but more importantly player time) and fun, and there's no point in using them until you really need to move all those items.

I agree with this. Fact is that trains are still pretty much pointless if all you want to do is fire up a rocket at default game settings. But very fun, and should therefore be encouraged. Rapid inserters should make getting started with them slightly easier since you can build smaller mining outpost stations without getting bottlenecked at the belt-to-chest transition.

[ihcn]

There are many things which I dislike according to it, starting with trains, which is most capable and powerfull transport in the game already, got another huge buff. Add information from another FFF, in which they said they plan to increase amount of slots in carts too (in the future).

That's because one of the developers really love transport tycoon. Talk about objectivity.

Another thing to point is that people may stay at older versions. I saw that in minecraft when microsoft took over. Some people(including me) still stay at versions of pre-microsoft. Mainly because of some mods(modmakers didn't update their mods anymore).

It seems pretty off-mark to invoke objectivity when talking about the creation of a work of art.

No shit they aren't objective. Art is subjective. To developers of real games (not assembly-line mass market call of duty games) making a game is very personal, and each person in the process draws upon their own experiences and preferences when making it.

[alan2here]

So long design:




You'll be fine:

[Fatmice]

Sigh... Did you even read my message? You didn't understand my points. I'm not talking about using belts on a primary basis. I'm talking about that you need them to connect 2 bot networks. I repeat once again, I know how bots work and I know that bots>belts, and believe it or not, it will stay like that in 0.13, even if any other argument falls off, they still produce less lag than belts.

You don't even need belts to connect separate networks. If the networks are one tile apart, inserter->chest is enough. If further apart, inserter->chest->wagon->inserter->chest.

I know what bots excel in and I know how to use them. If you would read my message you'd get that I'm talking about bases which do rocket/minute and more. If they are doing 1 single task over a relitevely short distance, they can throughput any amount of items like ores per minute, limit is only your PC, which will show slideshow. Unloading a train, for instance is something bots will always excel. And I insist, that logistic network of roboports on a train stations block should be independent from a global base one, and don't even bother replying if you don't understand why is it so, when you are talking about bases, operating dozens of thousands of ores per minute.

And long story short, those bases can't be done without a relitive use of belts, neither in 0.12, nor in 0.13.

Actually those bases can be done without any belt use ins 0.12. Unless there is some fundamental changes to how robots work, so will 0.13. Clearly you have not built one or you would know. But this is rather sidetracked.

I still hold that the inserter change is short sighted and not well thought-out. Indeed, if anything it appears inserter behavior was changed so that all inserters now have a basket, with non-rapid inserter having a basket that holds 1 item and rapid inserter holding up to 11 items, from the stack-bonus tech upgrade. The most crucial change is that the basket must be filled or fillable before an inserter make a move, i.e. the rapid inserter must grab all X items before moving that stack to an inventory or belt. So you do not want to place rapid inserter everywhere. Since all the other inserters have a basket size of 1 item, they will execute a move as soon as their basket can be satisfied. The implication of this is that for most use case, non-rapid inserter will be used and will have to be used in multiples since they do not have stack bonus. Furthermore, many beacon builds will now be limited to inserters throughput and not beacon layout. Unless the non-rapid inserter have their speed increased, more of them will need to be used for any serious beacon use and no doubt will make builds less compact. More inserters usage will also means more computing cycles devoted to them unless they did something else to streamline this process. With regards to train, rapid inserter must be used since it is the only one with the stack bonus. The major downside is mixed wagon loading/unloading will have much dead volume since the rapid inserters will not operate unless their basket is fulfilled.

[RobertTerwilliger]

As the rapid inserter currently waits until its hand is filled with items, it is not clearly better than fast inserter. When the bonus is 5, and it has 4 items in hand, it can wait minutes (or forever) for the last item, which might be undesirable

It HAS to have "reset timer" (maybe few seconds to make it not worth in sparse flow), or else it'll lead to frustrations.

E.g.:
Mining outpost has station for 3 wagons 6 inserters each.
Outpost runs out and with "perfect ballancing" all 18 inserters end up with, say, 3 ore items in hand, 54 in total - that goes into 2 stacks when you deconstruct the outpost. You'll have to dump that extra ore somewhere every time your outpost runs out, which will be terribly annoying at poor-resource maps.
BUT if inserter quit waiting after, say, 5 seconds - it'll be allright, all ore will be transfered away.

[Faerindel]

Stack size removal from other inserters = Not a fan. Played Factorio before that was a thing and was quite happy when it was added. I could live with it, though.

Bulk inserter = AW YISS SO AWSOM...

As the rapid inserter currently waits until its hand is filled with items [..] When the bonus is 5, and it has 4 items in hand, it can wait minutes (or forever) for the last item[..]
To make it useful, we will increase the maximum rapid inserter capacity (instead of inserter stack size bonus) from 4 to 11, so it can hold up to 12 items of the same kind.

Well, fuck.

With that, I do NOT want to upgrade the stack size to the max, to avoid having to manually retrieve the last 10 items from the inserter. Or to mess up with my calculations when I want a specific amount of stuff done. That would severily limit its usefulness for me.
So this FF brings me news from something cool I won't really use, and a nerf to the stuff I will keep using.

:<

[Fatmice]

Or you can have the best of both worlds

...What should have been done, in my opinion, is instead of changing inserter stack bonus as a technology applicable only to the rapid inserter type, the technology should be changed to an inserter upgrade. This technology is researched once and will give access to inserter upgrade slots and an inserter stack bonus module that can be built. Each inserter stack bonus module increases the number of items picked up by an inserter by one and energy consumption by 20%. The stack bonus and energy consumption increase are additive. All inserters will have a number of slots, depending on their type, for inserter stack bonus upgrades that can be inserted by the player. In this fashion, the player has direct control over which inserter should operate with stack bonus. What separates the rapid inserter from the other inserters is the queue behavior and item compression, i.e. they wait until their buffer is full before executing a move and items placed on belts are fully compressed. The other inserters will behave as they do now in 0.12.x where they move up to the stack bonus but does not wait for a full queue nor will they place items on the belt in such a way that compression is easily achieved...

[ssilk]

This was an interesting FFF, indeed.

The Rapid Inserter

First I asked myself, how many test-games did Kovarex solve, to be so sure about this decision. [You need to know: If he writes like so, it is really, really hard to find better arguments. You need also to know, that he doesn't like to explain his arguments. ]

How many test-games? I think 10 or so. Who of us can say that? Nobody.

So let's assume this is the best solution for now. Solution, for which problem?

Well, there are plenty of problems, this change will fix. So I try to switch a bit into Kovarex-mode to list them (and no, I didn't know the internals, I just read the last FFF's careful):

- Use of CPU
instead of 14 inserters to fill a belt, we need only 4 (or 5?), a reduction of 60% and so a reduction of some CPU usage. Sounds like a bad argument, but both - the loader and rapid inserter - would be able to reduce the CPU load.

- so o so: Inserter code must be rewritten, good time to do more changes
Due to the changes on circuit network, the inserters need some rework. But I admit, it's a bad argument. But the next is much better!

- Fixes the "one item logic"
Before 0.6 or so we did't have inserter stack size bonus. We could do circuit logic like "if there are exactly 2 items in the box". What should I say: The logic didn't work anymore, when the stack size bonus was introduced. No, even more bad: You just understood, how the circuit network works, and you are very proud of building the first working circuit logic. And then you research the SSB and you don't even notice, that your fine logic doesn't work anymore. This is in my eyes a real fuckoff, which is now fixed with this change.

- Fixes stupid furnace logic stuff
There are hundreds of posts about going around this "limitation" of furnaces, mostly things like: How to built reliable multiple smelters setups (copper, iron and steel), that can switch between the needed stuff. And similar. I think those construction could be very useful.
All those constructions are now simply possible, but need some circuit logic instead. Cool! Yeah! That enables a lot of more complex recipes for furnaces. Don't let the smelter decide what to smelt, instead let the inserters/combinators decide what to fill in the furnace. Really, really nice idea! I like that.

- The stack size bonus silently changes the existing structures
As already mentioned: In v0.6 or so the stack size bonus was introduced. That felt a bit unlogical to me. I can remember back, I had two thoughts:
a) How should a player understand, what an inserter stack size bonus is? The game doesn't explain that by itself! So, if I'm a new player and if I research SSB and look to my setup, that uses only stack-size bonus of 1 I don't see any difference and think: Fuck, why did I research this, it does nothing or I don't understand, what it does.
With this change it becomes logical and self-explaining again.
b) More important was this: how should this stack size bonus work? Is that just a software update to the inserters? But why didn't they work like so from beginning? where are the stored items? Magic? It makes no sense!
The rapid inserter makes that very clear: there is a device, that is different, than the others. If the graphical representation changes also - to let the player see, that where the itemes are stacked - it will be perfect! Depending on how that graphic is done, the stack size bonus could be really just a software update to the rapid inserters. Otherwise (mechanical changes) see above: How does this work without operating the changes to each inserter?

- More diversity
In the middle-game you need only lots an lots of fast inserters, many smart inserters and some long arms. The basic inserter and burner inserters aren't needed anymore. Some players systematically replaces basic inserters with fast. That reveals a weak point of Factorio: There are too many inserters and their differences are too equal.

This looks now different! So I try to think about what inserters we will have in 0.13:
- burner inserter - they make sense in the early game and make the energy production more reliable against full black outs, also useful for no-electric power setups (gun turrets)...
- basic inserter - no question, that is a must
- filter inserter - that might be the replacement for fast/smart inserter
- long handed inserter - nothing changes here...
- rapid inserter - well...

As former posts already said: The smart inserter isn't needed anymore, cause every inserter is able to be smart; as I understand, it needs another device/module/... to do that.

I see the filter function very critical, because there are other (in my eyes more clever) ways to filter bulk items, than just with inserters (*). But when really introducing the filter inserter I hope they implement a NOT-filter.

I see also not the point between basic and filter inserter. This problem (every basic inserter can just be updated with filter inserter) keeps the same and it makes no sense to have a slow filter inserter. I don't have a good solution for that, maybe the frame-idea (to have only one basic type of inserter and the diversity is done by puting different modules etc. into it) makes sense, but that doesn't add much to the gameplay and increases the complexity a lot and reduces also game-handling-speed.

- Limitation increases creativity (Why they're buffed)
As already mentioned: Blue inserters are the thing! They are used for everything! In the end I asked myself: Why again do we have basic inserters? The buff is needed to reset the situation and bring in the diversity of the inserters again. But see above.

- Gameplay
All changes should aim to add more gameplay and reduce complexity. What should I say: 100% full hit into the center! If this above has been suggested in the suggestion board I would have said something like "Interesting, and it fixes a lot of problems, I don't see also no disadvantages in gameplay, only postive effects! That is a good suggestion, but it needs to be more specific. But I doubt that the devs will do such a big changes". So I'm in fact quite glad, that they do this step, knowing, that many players will not like it.


Finally I read some voices like "Waaaa, the red inserters", "too much buff", "when 99% players say 'go left', the devs should go left".
So much to say, but I will make it short: The 0.12 will work, even if 0.13 will be released. Things must change, cause life is change; it makes no sense to keep everything as it is and add just more stuff on top of that. You need to cleanup stuff before adding more. These changes are needed in preparation to the final 1.0 release and they are the right direction, but I think the details aren't specific enough yet. This explains also the critics on it. I think the reason for that is just, that Kovarex didn't have much time to write that, because of the game-conference he wanted to visit...


Train Station Visualization
That changes are quite useful, but my first thought was this: Now locos/wagons with different sizes aren't possible anymore!

Or different: Of course other wagons could have different sizes, no question, but if you use them the train will not match to the displayed raster.

Or in other words: The raster is just a help. It's not a "Built train for this station"-button. It's not a blueprint for trains.

I don't know, if I like that, cause locos/wagons with different size will now always be a bit "questionable". But I think they are really nice and useful... the possibilities of the trains are currently only at 5%... And to be not just negative: Maybe there is some kind of "switching" between the different possible layouts (R-key on the rain stop for example). Or it shows by default the raster for your last built train...

I see also in long term a need for automatic building of trains. Some kind of "Depot". Put iron and stuff in an a train comes out with the right configuration.

... I just want to say, for me it needs a bit more programming, but the current solution is much, much better than yet.



(*) Some links to some suggestions I think, that are relevant to filtering. That the posts are authored by myself is just bad luck.

viewtopic.php?f=80&t=14741 Inverse filter setting (Is not filter, take all except...) [links just to other posts, that are not by myself]
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=23616 Smart Splitter (The Real One)

(**) How to set up a station:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=9153 'Stations'

[Fatmice]

- Use of CPU
instead of 14 inserters to fill a belt, we need only 4 (or 5?), a reduction of 60% and so a reduction of some CPU usage. Sounds like a bad argument, but both - the loader and rapid inserter - would be able to reduce the CPU load.

And how many more inserters to keep up with beacon boosted setups now that stack bonus do not apply to the non-rapids? I can only guess that more than the savings afforded by the rapid inserter. Of course this needs to be tested with megabase builds to see any real gains assuming all of the megabase is not affected much and can simply be loaded up under 0.13 without drastic change, outside of inserter replacements where needed, for as close to a one to one comparison as possible.

- so o so: Inserter code must be rewritten, good time to do more changes
Due to the changes on circuit network, the inserters need some rework. But I admit, it's a bad argument. But the next is much better!

- Fixes the "one item logic"
Before 0.6 or so we did't have inserter stack size bonus. We could do circuit logic like "if there are exactly 2 items in the box". What should I say: The logic didn't work anymore, when the stack size bonus was introduced. No, even more bad: You just understood, how the circuit network works, and you are very proud of building the first working circuit logic. And then you research the SSB and you don't even notice, that your fine logic doesn't work anymore. This is in my eyes a real fuckoff, which is now fixed with this change.

Yes, I remember this change. While I don't disagree with the reversion, I find that it lacks imagination. This was a good opportunity to make inserter modular, which will make stack bonus transparent and not something you research and forget about.

- Fixes stupid furnace logic stuff
There are hundreds of posts about going around this "limitation" of furnaces, mostly things like: How to built reliable multiple smelters setups (copper, iron and steel), that can switch between the needed stuff. And similar. I think those construction could be very useful.
All those constructions are now simply possible, but need some circuit logic instead. Cool! Yeah! That enables a lot of more complex recipes for furnaces. Don't let the smelter decide what to smelt, instead let the inserters/combinators decide what to fill in the furnace. Really, really nice idea! I like that.

Yeah, they are simpler due to fixed insert but they are also now heavily bottlenecked by the same token. Tileable beacon builds will look quite strange indeed.

- The stack size bonus silently changes the existing structures
As already mentioned: In v0.6 or so the stack size bonus was introduced. That felt a bit unlogical to me. I can remember back, I had two thoughts:
a) How should a player understand, what an inserter stack size bonus is? The game doesn't explain that by itself! So, if I'm a new player and if I research SSB and look to my setup, that uses only stack-size bonus of 1 I don't see any difference and think: Fuck, why did I research this, it does nothing or I don't understand, what it does.
With this change it becomes logical and self-explaining again.
b) More important was this: how should this stack size bonus work? Is that just a software update to the inserters? But why didn't they work like so from beginning? where are the stored items? Magic? It makes no sense!
The rapid inserter makes that very clear: there is a device, that is different, than the others. If the graphical representation changes also - to let the player see, that where the itemes are stacked - it will be perfect! Depending on how that graphic is done, the stack size bonus could be really just a software update to the rapid inserters. Otherwise (mechanical changes) see above: How does this work without operating the changes to each inserter?

The initial introduction of stack-bonus was just that, initial. The initial reason for the stack-bonus was also for throughput and computational saving. This is now a revisit. I really wish there was a bit more imagination put into it instead of this rehash. Afterall, if all inserters are now "smart" why aren't they also modular when it comes to their functionality?

- More diversity
In the middle-game you need only lots an lots of fast inserters, many smart inserters and some long arms. The basic inserter and burner inserters aren't needed anymore. Some players systematically replaces basic inserters with fast. That reveals a weak point of Factorio: There are too many inserters and their differences are too equal.

This looks now different! So I try to think about what inserters we will have in 0.13:
- burner inserter - they make sense in the early game and make the energy production more reliable against full black outs, also useful for no-electric power setups (gun turrets)...
- basic inserter - no question, that is a must
- filter inserter - that might be the replacement for fast/smart inserter
- long handed inserter - nothing changes here...
- rapid inserter - well...

I don't think the difference is that much even with fixed insert. Most belt driven builds are operating below the insert throughput anyway and people who "upgrade" their inserter just because are of the mind set that newer is better. That is not necessarily the game's fault or design but more to do with their own logic.

I see the filter function very critical, because there are other (in my eyes more clever) ways to filter bulk items, than just with inserters (*). But when really introducing the filter inserter I hope they implement a NOT-filter.

I see also not the point between basic and filter inserter. This problem (every basic inserter can just be updated with filter inserter) keeps the same and it makes no sense to have a slow filter inserter. I don't have a good solution for that, maybe the frame-idea (to have only one basic type of inserter and the diversity is done by puting different modules etc. into it) makes sense, but that doesn't add much to the gameplay and increases the complexity a lot and reduces also game-handling-speed.

I would hope that filtering and the NOT-operator is part of their smartness, a toggle or a selection box that could be ticked once the item filtering has been applied, and not a separate inserter. But I will have to hold out and see given their lack of imagination with this wonderful opportunity to overhaul inserter functionality.

- Limitation increases creativity (Why they're buffed)
As already mentioned: Blue inserters are the thing! They are used for everything! In the end I asked myself: Why again do we have basic inserters? The buff is needed to reset the situation and bring in the diversity of the inserters again. But see above.

All high-througput factories use fast inserter. This is inevitable. Then again, I do not see why the game or the developer must explicitly require diversity for all other use case. People should just build however they like it and use whatever inserter they fancy, even if that faster inserter is not really an improvement over the basic inserter for many use case.

- Gameplay
All changes should aim to add more gameplay and reduce complexity. What should I say: 100% full hit into the center! If this above has been suggested in the suggestion board I would have said something like "Interesting, and it fixes a lot of problems, I don't see also no disadvantages in gameplay, only postive effects! That is a good suggestion, but it needs to be more specific. But I doubt that the devs will do such a big changes". So I'm in fact quite glad, that they do this step, knowing, that many players will not like it.

This is purely your opinion of course. I personally see the change as blasé and off the target. It looks to me more like they are feeling the crunch time of June and so haven't iterated over this change enough yet. What do you know even the title of the FF gave off that sentiment.

[therewolfmb]

I love the train visualization addition:, it will make station building so much easier.

The Rapid inserter seems like a great addition. It will provide a powerful solution for high throughput situations, while also having enough complexity to require the player to think about its use. Without the full stack requirement the it would make the inserter too powerful and just become the standard choice.

My only concern is when trying to use the inserter to move multiple item types out of the same chest. Perhaps when taking items from a chest, the inserter only picks up when there are enough items for a full batch. Example: if stack size is at 12, a rapid inserter would ignore a stack of 11 iron in favor for a stack of 12 copper.

This still causes delays at low throughput, making a fast inserter better, but saves the frustration of constantly clogged rapid inserters in multi-item lines.. Unless of course that's the planned use case, restricting rapid inserters only 1 item processes.

As for the people complaining about the debuff, I'm not really sure what the probelm is. The devs have said that all inserters will be smart(circuit control, filtered) so that's not a Issue. And if fast inserters are too slow because of the debuff, why not just use a rapid inserter?

I will agree that a long rapid inserter could be warranted.

[V453000]

Thank you ssilk for such deep thought about the issue, there are many things I hadn't thought of. Before I read your post I was more convinced about giving stack size to all inserters instead of a new inserter. Now I totally agree with it, except giving it some more fitting name like Stack inserter would be nice.

Particularly awesome things in my eyes:
- mechanically making sense
- furnace stuff
- diversity, assuming the full-stack requirement
- full stack requirement == ability to create priorities for 1-item inserters!!!

The way how much slower long inserters are going to be now is kind of offputting, but let's just see how it goes, we can always patch it for improvements. I like how it creates more diversity - attempting to make everything in reach of short inserters is a nice extra requirement, solvable in many various ways (different cargoes on each side of belt, belts from various sides going to the machine, ...)

Thanks, I really enjoyed reading your thoughts there.

V

[ratchetfreak]

- Use of CPU
instead of 14 inserters to fill a belt, we need only 4 (or 5?), a reduction of 60% and so a reduction of some CPU usage. Sounds like a bad argument, but both - the loader and rapid inserter - would be able to reduce the CPU load.

And how many more inserters to keep up with beacon boosted setups now that stack bonus do not apply to the non-rapids? I can only guess that more than the savings afforded by the rapid inserter. Of course this needs to be tested with megabase builds to see any real gains assuming all of the megabase is not affected much and can simply be loaded up under 0.13 without drastic change, outside of inserter replacements where needed, for as close to a one to one comparison as possible.

Less because you would use the rapids in the beacon setup. Chest to chest the rapid would transfer even more items than the stack upgrade allows now.

Most people have 1 item per belt-lane which is always constantly fed. This means that the rapid inserter will eventually pick up it's full stack, check the target inventory for what it still can accept and then start picking up items again depending on what is missing in the assembler.

Then there is that the rapid inserter would make copper wire on belts viable again (still not recommended but could get max speed out of a circuit assembler).

[cbensi]

So I have wasted all the time I spent into making these monstrosities...

fast unloader train to express belt

unloader.jpg (351.45 KiB) Viewed 5697 times

fast loader express belt to train

loader.jpg (472.02 KiB) Viewed 5697 times

Oh, well. At least I get new toys to play with...

[ssilk]

- Gameplay
All changes should aim to add more gameplay and reduce complexity. What should I say: 100% full hit into the center! If this above has been suggested in the suggestion board I would have said something like "Interesting, and it fixes a lot of problems, I don't see also no disadvantages in gameplay, only postive effects! That is a good suggestion, but it needs to be more specific. But I doubt that the devs will do such a big changes". So I'm in fact quite glad, that they do this step, knowing, that many players will not like it.

This is purely your opinion of course.

Hm. Not everything. See, there are objective, measurable reasons, why this change is better, than yet; the main point is, that it reduces complexity by reducing similar working inserters. Or take the smart inserter, which will become worthless with 0.13. And it removes a very high (but hidden!) complexity (remove the SSB), which is not needed it any case and sometimes also contra-productive. And it combines that with more specialization, which increases the gameplay by increasing the complexity only a bit.

I have critizied the useless basic inserter, but I don't have a good idea, only the moduled inserters (your idea)... Some technology with such frames and equiping the frames is surely the right way for later game, but not with items, that are so heavy used as inserters.

So I can say: For me (from my sight as moderator and handling most of the suggestions) it's a very clever change. But, well, it's of course just my opinion.

I personally see the change as blasé and off the target. It looks to me more like they are feeling the crunch time of June and so haven't iterated over this change enough yet. What do you know even the title of the FF gave off that sentiment.

Well, that is of course your opinion. There might be some truth in it. But I don't think so cause I cannot know it. Instead I assume, that the devs will do always their very best. I can sleep much better with this thinking.

Ok, I think they made some decisions and are not very sure about the details, but the decision is like so, cause they need to fill the gaps that comes with 0.13.

All we can do now is to have useful ideas, but rejection will bring nobody forward.