Factorio Forums

Please don't nerf, instead move construction bots earlier; they are a really important quality of life upgrade.

That bot factory proves how beautiful logistic bots are. It would be a shame to lose them.

I had to create an account just to post this. This is how much I care.

Zavian wrote:

torham wrote:Just out of interest how would a legacy build work on Steam? Is it possible? At the moment I cant even stop Steam from updating my games. I am starting to think I have made a bad decision in migrating my Factorio copy onto steam.

In Steam, right click factorio. Select properties -> Betas and choose a version.

I see now, thanks. I didn't realize it also contains previous builds. Good times

I want to see it as an option in advanced settings. More options - more fun!

Like someone here said Construction bots could be earlier than Logistic. You could do the game without bots, but have checkbox to enable them - something like Peaceful mod - EDIT: or have it the other way, something like "More challenging - no logistic bots" checkbox.

Wow, 19 pages of comments. I admit to not having read all of them so sorry if this suggestion has been made already

1) Split the construction from logistics and allow us to have BOTH earlier
2) Make the "Worker robot cargo size" and "Worker robot speed" more expensive
3) Enhance belts with QoL improvements like Automatic Belt Planner (or other) in vanilla

The logistics robots start at cargo=1. For 200 r/g/b science cargo is increased to 2 and for another 150 r/g/b science speed is up 75%. That increases the carrying capacity (speed x cargo) of the network to 350% for 350 r/g/b science - a lot cheaper than researching blue belts (300 r/g/b/p).

Ignore the people who want enhanced performance belts. Next they'll want enhanced trains and enhanced pipes. Bots are out of line and can be nerfed a little.

Remember this?

Bots = laser turrets in this diagram.

It is an amazing thing to see that first bot fly about, should happen earlier but without breaking the game (keep carrying capacity low).

.

sicklag wrote:think about the devs they have to read all the double post...

Or they just ignore it. So far there is little discussion here. Mostly just people stating their opinion for or against and rehashing arguments made many times before.
Data mining this is going to be a headache.

I admit that I skipped some pages of this thread...

Personally I like buffing over nerfing anyways (same for fluid machanics and sideloading), because from a developement perspective removing/nerfing stuff has a greater potential to break existing designs and make the users unhappy. Also overpowered game mechanics can be seen as an achivement (just like artilary/nukes).

I agree with/suggest the following:

Buffing:
- Add new features to belts like loaders/sorters/higher tier belts/belt throughput research etc (as many suggested before me )
- In real life throughput is increased by using crates/boxes/pallets. Maybe something like packing/unpacking machines can be introduced to "Pack" items into boxes and move those with belts. Packers will take empty boxes and the items and put it in "full boxes" and unpacker will do the reverse.

Nerfing:
- If anything maybe the infinite robot speed reseach needs to be capped.

Personally I like belt spaghetti, but sometimes it's just not practical.

Why not make it an option while creating your game?

That way you can please both factions.
"Bot Lovers" turn them on at game start.
"Belt lovers" turn them off at game start.

Heck, in my opinion it's a great opportunity for you to get creative, you can do all sort of interesting things here with just one slider:

• Slider left means "Hardcore Belt Mode", no bots allowed period. Instead additional belt tiers are unlockable, additional reasearch options appear etc. - basically belts are really OP
• Slider one tick to the right: "Belt mode", only logistic robots exist - for example how you described it in your post
• Slider central "Normal mode" No OP Belts, no OP Bots - just the normal items as we know them now
• Slider one tick more to the right: "Bot Mode", limited belt options, maybe only 1 or 2 tiers of belts available
• Slider max right: "Bot heaven": Earlier robot tech unlockable (like nanobots for example or something like that), no belts at all, crazy overpowered bots available to research and play around with, big roboports or whatever you can think of

Please keep in mind, that this is just a fast brainstorming, so the ideas definetly need to be flashed out or maybe they aren't even possible to implement code-wise.
I just wanted to say, that there is no need to decide between the one or the other. Everyone can play the game in the way they want to play - and who knows: Maybe someone from the bot factiions wants to try a belt challenge for a change, or vice versa?
Sounds like a win-win to me - if it can be realized.

Just a few thoughts, that probably are destined to be buried in this long discussion thread, but hey: I tried. ^-^

Greetings,
Tynian

P.S.: Sorry if that idea already came up, I admit I didn't want to read 20 pages of comments.

Please do not remove the logistics system. If you ask me, just make the logistics bots a very late-game thing, but keep construction bots where they are now.

My ideas to "semi nerf" logistic bots:

Reduce the starting speed of bots and add more speedup tech for late game, it also helps to keep the base busy generating more science in the same way as infinite research.

Lower load and unload capacity on chests just like only a few bots can power up at the same time, to begin with only one bot at a time can load or unload and you have to research upgrades to allow multiple bots, this means that to begin with, belts and inserters will be the only viable option for throughput intensive work but space constrained loading, like loading a building train with many items, can still use bots (I did a 24 item belt powered loading station for a 2 wagon building train and the belt circus covers 8 times the actual station with chests and inserters consuming wast amount of unavailable resources.

Also increase time to load or unload as the bot should have to land, load, and take of, and have inflight pickup and delivery be another late game upgrade.

This would mean that in late end game you would have today's fast unlimited robots but not until your at a stage to transform into megabase, which brings its own limitations anyway and scales to a level where belts just are not practical since you have to do to much tweaking to connect different blueprints and throughput can get severely hamstrung and requiring micromanagement most megabase builders probably don't like.

Found similar ideas in this post viewtopic.php?f=38&t=56218&start=360#p331396
And these
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=56218&start=340#p331356
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=56218&start=340#p331363
viewtopic.php?f=38&t=56218&start=320#p331324

Sigma1 wrote:Please do not remove the logistics system. If you ask me, just make the logistics bots a very late-game thing, but keep construction bots where they are now.

Tbh in most of my games construction is significantly to late.
I switched to nanobots to be able to use blueprints at start since getting to construction bots requires dozen hours of play;)

As for logistics stuff - I usually stick to belts and use logi bots once unlocked for high value items to reduce amount of them stuck on belts. I'd gladly get some new belt type that would be better in moving big amounts of stuff - need to build 2-3-... parallel belts to transfer stuff makes using bots more tempting after 3-4 parallel belts are not enough.

I agree with Twinsen, bots are OP, no fun, and break immersion and the challenge the game should be about.
I've been playing Twinsen's "suggested" way for a while: Logistic Bots only ever do inventory management, never throughput.

I like the idea of keeping them, but vastly limiting their throughput.
I also think there should be some late-game tech that buffs belt throughput and makes building belt-based megabases more viable.

My two cents.

Leave bots as is. Add better belts that come at the same late research level as requester chests:

* Stacked belt with identical stack size as  stack inserters.
* Belt speed might be slower than blue for balance.
* Splitters will combine less than max size stacks.

Some bonus consequences:
* This will speed up inserter <-> belt throughput.
* Belt train stations can probably be built without buffer chests, since each belt tile is a ~100 item buffer.

ManaUser wrote:What if instead of stacked belts there were some kind of... Transport Tube, it would be somewhat like a belt, but you wouldn't actually see the items moving around on it. This way the item density could be as high as you want. Perhaps they could even be "virtualized" somewhat and not tracked in full detail. Seems like that might help with the UPS problem. I don't know anything about the internals, I'm just throwing this idea out there.

Transport tube, makes me think of the transport tubes in futurama, the glass ones, but instead of people, they could be used for transport. It could look awesome to see cargo flying around in them.

Interesting. I'm a relatively new player (about 100 hours of playtime so far), and for me the Bots are the most enjoyable part of the game.

I find the belt-fiddling part of the game more tedious and annoying than fun.

Once I get to the Bot stage, though, I start to get more excited. I can finally start designing systems the way I want them, and organize things as I feel best, with less annoying impediments. I start to really enjoy the game at that point.

So I'm very glad to hear that they won't be removed!

Flying logistics bots are boring, I don't use them except for resupply and I would not mourn their death. I'd be okay with logistic bots if they ran on a belt-sized rail network, though.

Manawind wrote:Had an idea for stacked belts... what if you could take up to 4 blue belts into a building that was 4x3 and then build sections of stacked belts that are 2x2 each (though you can't interact with the items while they are in these stacked belts).... and at the other end have an other 4x3 building that splits them back out again.

Cause I know I'd love to be able to Mux and Demux my belts for longer distances or compressing them in areas that they are passing through but aren't needed.

Here is a very crude drawing.

I like this one, it does not change existing belts but adds an option that can compete with bots when the base grows, and I assume that inputs and outputs should be synced so the belts are not mixed.

I would use this over bots in most cases

Caine wrote:

sicklag wrote:think about the devs they have to read all the double post...

Or they just ignore it. So far there is little discussion here. Mostly just people stating their opinion for or against and rehashing arguments made many times before.
Data mining this is going to be a headache.

I am not sure you are getting the point of this thread, which is to discuss what you do or do not like about this thought. In the original blog, the very last line is, literally "As always, let us know what you think on our forum." The devs WANT people to discuss this. If one person suggests something, and nobody else agrees or disagrees with that person on the grounds that the topic has already been discussed, then the devs don't know how important this is, and how many people want it. Maybe it's just one person who feels this way? If 100 people agree or disagree strongly, then the devs can say "Ok, this is important to many players".

Rylant

Some sort of super belt are the solution, a 4x4 sized covered belt (covered to improve game performance) capable of only carrying one resource at a time, but with three times the throughput of a single belt of the same color.



These will be the arteries of your base. With this the time spent laying multiple belts between locations is drastically reduced as well.