Friday Facts #225 - Bots versus belts (part 2)

[GasBandit]

Here you go: https://mods.factorio.com/mod/logistic-research-fix

Just for your information, My Logistics mod DOES change when requester chests are unlocked (The Logistics system research) back down to blue science.
and as of my mod version 0.16.1, bumps the requester chest down to be included on Logistic robotics, so you have it from the start. The logistics system only unlocks the active provider and buffer chests now. (Logistics Robots only unlocks Passive provider and requester chests, no storage, and Construction robots only unlocks Storage)

My mod does however add a whole bunch of other stuff too though, Bots that go all the way up to Fusion powered MK5 that don't need to recharge, higher tier, faster belts and inserters, and 2 tiers of 2 branches of trains, a version that just goes faster, and has more storage space, and an armoured version.

The one thing I don't add however, is Loaders... and given how this whole Bot vs Belt stuff is going, I can see that it is actually a hole in my mod.


Though, if you did want a mod that just changes the requirements for the logistics system... I know back in 0.15 when they increased the requirements, someone made a mod to bring it back down to science pack 3, maybe it got updated to 0.16?

Thanks, you guys, I appreciate it.

[Koub]

Or you could also ask yourself why is there so much noise with people asking to nerf bots in every imaginable way now that the devs have opened the pandora box, but almost no bot balancing issues were reported before (and I could find only one mod that did nerf the logibots that existed before this shitstorm, whereas there are literally dozens that BUFF bots in any possible way since months or years).

I wonder what would have happened if the devs had swapped bots and belts in their 224&225 FFF. Would have people overwhelmed us with ideas to nerf belts ?

full post

This is an excellent insight, that I want to emphasize once more.

My interpretation:
The mods for better bots are for a simple reason: Better UPS, means more production and even larger train networks.

The shouts for bot nerf are far more on the psychological side. Nothing is wrong with the standard game up to the rocket. Bots are rather weak in this area, people built their belts and were happy about the challenges. No complaints. Now Twinsen posts this *boring* base, where similar problems are solved with high-end tech and equipment (like mass level3 modules) and it gets way easier. This induces a feeling of *devaluement* of the achievements attained by the spaghetti belts. Thats why the typical advice *just dont use bots* does not work: The knowledge, that more efficient means exist, seems to spoil the joy in laying belts. Perhaps its also a sort of jealousy, that plays a role here. But not like *I want it easier* but rather *I dont want that others have it easier*. I dont know how to understand the large fraction of *I dont use bots much but please nerf them for the others*-opinions otherwise.

Even more personal (and provocative) opinion:
This is an excellent example of mass manipulation. The same balance worked fine for years, but then you give people a bad feeling about it and suddenly there is a huge uproar. I see some striking similarities with behavior of populistic politicians: You create a split into subgroups (bot-lovers vs bot-haters) and put them in opposing corners. You give a subgroup a bad feeling about what they have and what they do. You incite some jealousy. You suggest that restricting the other subgroup will help your own. You present selected points of view, leaving out other crucial information (like the fact, that you have to play through the whole main game of belt mess to get to the point, where you can afford such a base).
Concerning the last question of KOUB: It would not work with a *nerf Belts* outcry. As in politics, this works best on those, who do not know too much about the other subgroup. (Like: You want to incite fear towards foreigners? Best targets are those, who never saw a foreigner in their life!). Everybody knows belts. I bet every mega-baser had built several larger pure-belt factories as well. That why it does not work the other way round.

In contrast to the said politicians, I would not assume, that Twinsen created this effect intentionally. I guess it comes from loading savegames instead of building the base yourself: You can jump into a terrain without really knowing it. Nevertheless, it was a not helpful and fair way to start the debate.

When you write that bots are mod-buffed for better UPS, I'm sure the player base that use bots because they have no choice UPS wise is a very tiny fraction of the bot-users player base. You have to push the game to extreme limits tu need bots for UPS reasons, especially with 0.16 (this part is speculation, I'm actually not good enough to even dream of a megabase).

Actually the fun thing is I remember more suggestions / balancing requests to nerf belts than I remember suggestions to nerf bots in the years before the FFF 224 (my memory might be faulty though, but I really have the impression people did ask for belt nerfs more than they asked bot nerfs).

What you said in your last paragraph echoes with something I have also thought myself : I think that a growing proportion of the player base just copy-pastes designs created by others and found on multiplayer servers or on the internet/in the Show your creations subforum. Once again, this is a feeling, I have no data to backup my claims. A player who does this can achieve good results without actually mastering what his base is made for. As long as he has fun, I don't mind, games are meant to have fun. But the experience may seem "easy" : plonk blueprints and roboports, look at the production, feel good. But the sense of achievement will not be there. The sense of "It took me tens of hours to get there with my belts, I deserve the QoL bots provide".

For my part, I almost never get to the point where I can launch the rocket. Actually, I don't even get to the point where I have access to logibots since the tech requirement was pushed late game. But I remember the few games I pushed to that point, bots were a blessing for addressing some edge case productions. Typically when I wanted some explosives, and I had to take some sulfur at the other side of my factory, a few bots spared me a hideous belt spaghetti.

[m44v]

Or you could also ask yourself why is there so much noise with people asking to nerf bots in every imaginable way now that the devs have opened the pandora box, but almost no bot balancing issues were reported before (and I could find only one mod that did nerf the logibots that existed before this shitstorm, whereas there are literally dozens that BUFF bots in any possible way since months or years).

I disagree, the issue was brought up several times

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=20059
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23163
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21705#p136662
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... _the_game/
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... e_fun_and/
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... l/con9cc6/
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... ge_of_the/

But this is something that the community can't get a consensus, so is understandable that it wouldn't get momentum and forgotten. Twinsen showing that he shares the same sentiment gave them support they didn't had before, nothing to wonder about.

There have been more discussions in the past about nerfing belts than there have been to nerfing bots.

I bet that those discussions are more about train vs belts or how unrealistic belts are.

[AileTheAlien]

Hopefully nobody's posted this particular thing, but I haven't read the whole 40+ pages on this FFF or the previous FFF.

This chart (recreated for easier comparison) was posted, where the three main transport methods shown in a balanced version of the game, with three niches:

comparison-incomplete-gold.png (4.33 KiB) Viewed 7099 times

Compared to the current state of the game, which favours bots:

comparison-incomplete-current.png (4.33 KiB) Viewed 7099 times

However, if you aren't looking at such a limited scope, I believe the current situation is actually more complex:

comparison-full-current.png (9.89 KiB) Viewed 7099 times

Robots are still fairly heavily favoured, but I wouldn't be so hasty to assume that we've got three easily filled niches. There's more costs to the player to balance, than just space, flexibility and throughput. There's also "unconventional" transport methods, including stack insterters and chests (or train cars for that matter which are even better!). Is anyone calling for nerfs to those? I think a more holistic viewpoint is needed, which too few people here seem to be advocating.

[ske]

However, if you aren't looking at such a limited scope, I believe the current situation is actually more complex:

comparison-full-current.png

I would agree with you if resources and energy would be something that actually needed managing.

In the beginning of the game (when there aren't any bots anyways) you actually need to decide and manage a bit what to research (military or production?) and how to use your thin stream of plates. Then it would make sense to decide between a handful of bots or more assemblers. Later in the game there are enough resources. More than enough and you can always mine more if you need. Also with energy. Once you got enough solar or nuclear going it's a no-brainer. There is nothing to manage except pasting blueprints every now and then. In the current state resources and energy are no-brainers once you are at the stage where you actually deploy bots en masse.

One thing that is scarce but missing from the comparison is "player time". You can only make so many clicks per minute. Other people even less. Yet blueprints exist for whole factory setups. Once you have your superbot-army ready you're done. Set up some ore trains. Paste the factory and wait for the bots to build it. At the later stage every game basically turns into the same thing and bots rule everything (if you don't conscientiously decide against it).

The devs need to make some things in the game scarce in order for the player to need to decide a route depending on the circumstances. This also gives the respective resource, the map and the particular optimized setup a special value.

[Lastmerlin]

I disagree, the issue was brought up several times

viewtopic.php?f=16&t=20059
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=23163
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=21705#p136662
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... _the_game/
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... e_fun_and/
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... l/con9cc6/
https://www.reddit.com/r/factorio/comme ... ge_of_the/

But this is something that the community can't get a consensus, so is understandable that it wouldn't get momentum and forgotten. Twinsen showing that he shares the same sentiment gave them support they didn't had before, nothing to wonder about.

There have been more discussions in the past about nerfing belts than there have been to nerfing bots.

I bet that those discussions are more about train vs belts or how unrealistic belts are.

That are essentially two proposals. The third one is mainly about solar (which is topic of way more nerf discussion). And adding reddit sources is a cheap trick, because topics are often just duplicated there. Apart from this, its no official souce for proposals I think.

I could find way more topics for the single concept for nerfing belts, that they should use energy to function:
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=21058&p=138596&hili ... gy#p138596
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=27105&p=173712&hili ... gy#p173712
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=12845&p=90122&hili ... rgy#p90122
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=33202&p=209169&hili ... gy#p209169
viewtopic.php?f=16&t=3948&hilit=belt+energy
viewtopic.php?f=6&t=43221&p=251316&hili ... gy#p251316
viewtopic.php?f=80&t=21921&p=313384&hil ... gy#p313384

And this was a very sloppy search (just search belt+energy) and I stopped after 8 pages of results. I bet you could find way over 20.

This just underlines the gut feeling of Koub: Belt have been subject of way more discussions.

[Caine]

Robots are still fairly heavily favoured, but I wouldn't be so hasty to assume that we've got three easily filled niches. There's more costs to the player to balance, than just space, flexibility and throughput.

Yes you are right. I actually included the question to the community to discuss those metrics in an attempt to get a more broader and thought out view of the problem. I think all these suggestions about nerfs and buffs are pointless without first properly understanding where the real problems lie. I kept the initial metrics small for clarity of the example, even though some additional ones were immediately obvious (research cost, construction costs, energy usage). Easy of use is a good one too, but perhaps more subjective. Scalability is a more composite metric involving throughput, CPU load, space efficiency, energy and resource usage.

I think a more holistic viewpoint is needed, which too few people here seem to be advocating.

I agree.

[Lubricus]

Hopefully nobody's posted this particular thing, but I haven't read the whole 40+ pages on this FFF or the previous FFF.

This chart (recreated for easier comparison) was posted, where the three main transport methods shown in a balanced version of the game, with three niches:

comparison-incomplete-gold.png

Compared to the current state of the game, which favours bots:

comparison-incomplete-current.png

However, if you aren't looking at such a limited scope, I believe the current situation is actually more complex:

comparison-full-current.png

Robots are still fairly heavily favoured, but I wouldn't be so hasty to assume that we've got three easily filled niches. There's more costs to the player to balance, than just space, flexibility and throughput. There's also "unconventional" transport methods, including stack insterters and chests (or train cars for that matter which are even better!). Is anyone calling for nerfs to those? I think a more holistic viewpoint is needed, which too few people here seem to be advocating.

I don't think bots is high throughput and Ease of use, they are more like high throughput or Ease of use. You don't get high throughput without designing the factory around it.

[m44v]

That are essentially two proposals. The third one is mainly about solar (which is topic of way more nerf discussion). And adding reddit sources is a cheap trick, because topics are often just duplicated there. Apart from this, its no official souce for proposals I think.

My intention was to show that players brought the issue about bots in the past and is not something new, I wasn't trying to make a point with the number of links.

I could find way more topics for the single concept for nerfing belts, that they should use energy to function:
(...)
And this was a very sloppy search (just search belt+energy) and I stopped after 8 pages of results. I bet you could find way over 20.

This just underlines the gut feeling of Koub: Belt have been subject of way more discussions.

I did acknowledge that in my previous post, but I didn't say why it shouldn't be compared: the people asking to nerf belts do so for the sake of realism, people asking to nerf bots do so for the sake of not trivializing the game. They are different stances, and comparing them is fallacious.

[Drakken]

My opinion is PLEASE nerf the bots. I used them a few times and now only play without them. They are game breaking and ruin the Factorio experience IMHO. I agree with everything that was said in both of the belts vs bots news releases.

This will become even more important now that PVP is becoming a real feature in the game. If bots are by far the easier and more efficient way to make a factory it ruins the best part of this game which is the belt system and trying to make an efficient factory using them.

Thank you for making this great game.

[Zavian]

I don't think bots is high throughput and Ease of use, they are more like high throughput or Ease of use. You don't get high throughput without designing the factory around it.

But once you understand how to design a high throughput bot factory, it is almost always easier than designing the equivalent high throughput belt based factory.

[obuw]

I haven't read all 80+ pages of posts in these two FFF's, but I'd just like to chip in and offer an idea: If you want to nerf bots, why not try making them more complex to set up instead of just nerfing their numbers?

For instance, add a fuel requirement; make it so bots need to refuel from a roboport, which you need to pump in with a pipe. Make different fuel types with increasing production chain complexity, so the bots start pretty slow and require better fuel in order to move faster. (Remove the bot speed researches and replace them with researches that unlock new fuel types).

You could also add some kind of wear&tear to bots, so they require repairs every now and then. Either supply robot parts to the roboport to keep them in good condition, or make a new drone maintenance facility that drones need to be sent to for maintenance every now and then. Make it so there can be multiple malfunctions requiring different resources to fix, like iron plates, electronic circuits, lubricant, etc.

You could also use this drone maintenance facility to upgrade drones, for instance when you unlock a drone carry size upgrade, don't make it automatic, but make it so the drones need to visit the facility to be refitted with the upgrade (which could require more stuff depending on tier, like advanced electronics, refined uranium, etc).

There are a lot of ways of making bots more interesting instead of just nerfing what they do best. And by requiring resources to operate, you make bots an expensive but powerful option; the player can either choose to use belts which are free to run once set up, and only use weak bots for more complex parts of the factory, or they can do a bot-heavy factory and compensate by bringing in more resources, or using more productivity modules.

[Lastmerlin]

My opinion is PLEASE nerf the bots. I used them a few times and now only play without them. They are game breaking and ruin the Factorio experience IMHO. I agree with everything that was said in both of the belts vs bots news releases.

This will become even more important now that PVP is becoming a real feature in the game. If bots are by far the easier and more efficient way to make a factory it ruins the best part of this game which is the belt system and trying to make an efficient factory using them.

Thank you for making this great game.

This is really the prototype post for the *I dont use a feature, but PLEASE ruin it for others* -stance. I just dont get it - what do you win by that? As suspected several times - this must be some psychological reason, because there is no logical reason for that. I also bet this is prototype for the sort of player, who knows nothing about the game play styles that bots enable (really large bases), but seeks to ruin them nevertheless.

Concerning PVP: The modes I have seen so far are with a time limit of 4 hours. I bet that not a single logistic bot was used, because they are inefficient in this time frame. However, you could enable an option for PVP for such issues.

[Lubricus]

I don't think bots is high throughput and Ease of use, they are more like high throughput or Ease of use. You don't get high throughput without designing the factory around it.

But once you understand how to design a high throughput bot factory, it is almost always easier than designing the equivalent high throughput belt based factory.

For a large factory like a Megabase I would say yes. Before launching the first Rocket i would say no.

[MegaHamster7]

Why are people begging to nerf the bots? Don't like them - DON'T USE THEM.

Fuck off trying to ruin my game by crying for a nerf just because you don't want to use them.

I played a lot (the majority) of games where I only use belts. I also played a couple of bot games. I like the option and bots DO NOT need a nerf.

If you want a challenge go play bots with no solar or nuclear. Then whine about bots.

I played a lot of games where I defend everything with bullets for the challenge. I also play games where I just use lasers which is easy mode. Do lasers need a nerf, then? Are you going to enfore me into having 'more fun' because lasers are easier?

Don't prescribe how people 'have fun' with your game.

Also I love how you leave the loaders out of the game but then use them in almost every belt pic on FF - HAH.

Leave bots alone.
Don't make belts too easy to use.
Leave bots alone.
Don't tell me how to have fun with your game.
Leave bots alone.

[5thHorseman]

Why are people begging to nerf the bots? Don't like them - DON'T USE THEM.

But what if I want to use bots that are actually logically balanced with the rest of the game?

FTR I don't agree with either extreme side here. I don't think bots need to be knocked down to where they are worse than belts. I do however think that they are currentl a straight up replacement for belts and I DO agree with the developers that that is not ideal and should be changed.

The fact that the game is sandbox does not eliminate the concept of game balance. If that were the true, nobody would have any problem with level 1 assemblers being able to churn out rockets with 1 iron input. And if this was the only way to make rockets, people might consider a big portion of the rest of the game made worse because of it.

Of course, that's an exaggeration but so is "Fuck off trying to ruin my game" when all most people who are asking for a nerf are asking for is that bots be balanced so that they're not the only reasonable way to do something.

This would not be a huge problem if the developers intended it to be this way. It isn't even the only example of it. Burner miners and inserters are INTENDED to be replaced by later tech. Assembler 1's are INTENDED to be replaced by Assembler 2's. Most people don't use (yellow) inserters at all once fast inserters are unlocked. However, the developers do NOT intend it to be this way. They obviously intend belts to be the primary way to move stuff around in a factory over the short distances not covered by trains, and bots to be a niche thing that you CAN make an entire factory for if you want, but you aren't SUPPOSED to.

At least, I assume this is the case, based on what they've said. And that seems reasonable to me.

[Tricorius]

If you want a challenge go play bots with no solar or nuclear. Then whine about bots.

I played a lot of games where I defend everything with bullets for the challenge. I also play games where I just use lasers which is easy mode. Do lasers need a nerf, then? Are you going to enfore me into having 'more fun' because lasers are easier?

Indeed.

I started a new Death World for a challenge. I decided not to use lasers (I often don’t because I like the mechanics of supplying an ammo-based wall). I’ve used half of my starting iron and copper on ammo for that damn wall. Two starting patches of stone on walls. I ran out of coal due to power (and smelting all the damn ammo). I had to convert my power and smelting over to solid fuel from my small starting patch of oil.

Haven’t even got to bots yet. No where close. Trying to bump up my military tech so I can expand out to a near coal patch to bolster my sad, sad energy situation.

I set some parameters for myself and I’m having fun. I *am* going to build bots in this meager power environment. And it is going to be fun, and worth it.

It is a game. Choose what is fun for you. Then have fun. I don’t understand why this is a difficult concept.

[Engimage]

I have created a separate (sorry Koub) suggestion thread with a complete balancing solution.
I did is separately on purpose as it does not relate to bot nerfs
It also contains general game improvements and it is does not require major coding for devs so I don't want it to be lost in these FFF threads.

Item weight and pallets: complete solution

[Avezo]

For instance, add a fuel requirement; make it so bots need to refuel from a roboport, which you need to pump in with a pipe. Make different fuel types with increasing production chain complexity, so the bots start pretty slow and require better fuel in order to move faster. (Remove the bot speed researches and replace them with researches that unlock new fuel types).

They already require fuel, although not directly. They eat power from roboport, which is usually produced from fuel. About the rest of proposal, you eventually end up in the same situation as we are now anyway.

[AileTheAlien]

There is nothing to manage except pasting blueprints every now and then. In the current state resources and energy are no-brainers once you are at the stage where you actually deploy bots en masse.

One thing that is scarce but missing from the comparison is "player time". You can only make so many clicks per minute. Other people even less. Yet blueprints exist for whole factory setups. Once you have your superbot-army ready you're done. Set up some ore trains. Paste the factory and wait for the bots to build it.

You're conflating the two different types of robots here. The devs proposed nerfs and the discussions so far, have been around logistics robots, not construction robots. The construction robots are intended to help people not need to click so many times, and I believe a mod (or dev?) has said they could even have construction robots earlier in the game, to make players' lives easier. The logistics robots however, are the things that are (allegedly) unbalanced with the rest of the game, such that you end up using robots instead of trains or belts, which is the actual problem that we're debating here.