Drury wrote:What if I told you they can? You can filter items using static filter inserters, and you can balance belts with splitters. I'm not doing anything that'd be impossible without circuits; from a purely functional standpoint, all they do is save space. I don't have to hook anything to wires, no one does. I just do because it's fun. You said that bots can do something belts can't, and now you're saying what I do with belts is only possible due to my use of circuits. This isn't true. As I said, pure belts can do everything bots can, they just take up more space, and the more space they take up, the harder they are to use. This is partly why I use circuits, but at one point you start running into problems even with that. You run into the lategame, large quantities of items, large variety of items, lots of hungry assemblers, all with different needs. Trying to wrangle all the belts goes from a fun challenge to a chore.
Is it possible to fill up a train with 40 unique items using only belts and inserters? Using only one stop? I know this is getting a little pedantic, but I didn't mean "belts can't do what bot can do" in the sense you're talking about - with no parameters. A belt setup vs a bot setup might be the difference of about 20x the space and 20x the time, ie: bots can do what belts can't.
Drury wrote:And I'm not forcing you to use belts. I make it a point in every post I make - you can keep using bots if you want, I don't care about those at all. They can be as useful and powerful as you want them to be, be my guest. But give me the ability to reach that same level of efficiency with a system that has more depth to it.
I'm not sure bringing the two systems in line would be possible. Late game belts could be buffed, but I don't think they could ever reach the level of bots without having to nerf bots. filling a train with 40 unique times will never be easier with belts. Unless you rename belts to bots and vice versa.
rcp27 wrote:I’ve been thinking a bit about the issue of game progression with regard to this topic. A lot of the support for bots comes from the megabase builders who recognise that scaling up to massive production rates without killing the game performance is only possible with bots, and removing them would eliminate this type of gameplay. To me this is a legitimate concern in an open ended sandbox type game.
This is a very valid point, and I totally agree. Any nerfs to bots would artificially lower the maximum production possible at the very late stage of the game and would dampen fun of all players who both enjoy the power of bots, including the late stage megabuilders who are output focused.
oracleofepirus wrote:You missed the part where Commander was designed as a casual format.
It doesn't change my response. A casual game can still be competitive, therefore it still needs balance to be playable.
oracleofepirus wrote:The playerbase can and is splitting over this. If you think it's not, then you need to get your head out of the sand and take a look at why so many people have strong opinions about it.
Daid has a good response to this which I agree with.
It depends what you mean by split. They are certainly not splitting to the point of leaving the game (except in a few rare cases). I see it more as a friendly disagreement.
I'll add that players have strong opinions because they love the game. If Factorio wasn't as great a game as it was there wouldn't be enough people playing it as excessively as they are in order for this debate to occur. It's a testament to how awesome Factorio is.
oracleofepirus wrote:Nothing in a game is supposed to function any certain way. It does so only by a designer's choice.
Well... Not exactly. Game designers have created game metagames by accident in the past, not by design. Same thing can be said for some mechanics, they don't always get used as intended. Obviously the mechanics themselves are exactly as the designer created them - that's how they got there. Designers don't always get full control the intended outcomes.
Irregardless, by "supposed" I was talking about expectations. Trains are expected to collide because they are solid and are supposed to be traveling on land. Bots on the other hand are assumed to be in the air, on a 2d plane they would move over one another, but not necessarily collide. This is what we would expect to see is shown in game, and it is. But obviously if the designer wanted to go against having any type of collision then that would be their call - it just wouldn't be expected.
oracleofepirus wrote:If you think that bots are supposed to not have collision detection and that train are supposed to have collision detection, then you already have a misunderstanding of how some players will play.
I've already said multiple times that I think Factorio is primarily a sandbox game. I'm not making any assumptions to how anyone will play - I've even said all play styles are valid I believe? So you're misrepresenting my argument. What I am saying is that trains have collision, and bots don't. I'm assuming both are done for gameplay as well as immersion reasons. I am simply giving my best guess as to why the game may have been designed this way.
oracleofepirus wrote:I cannot believe that your success in your board game wasn't luck.
This seems to be entirely outside the scope of our argument. I mean no ill will. I am simply trying to express a disagreement with your statements.
oracleofepirus wrote:What's the optimal way to play Minecraft?
It is entirely dependent on your goals, just like Factorio. For example, both games would have optimal solutions to speedruns. Getting 100 spm is a player imposed goal. Likewise in Minecraft I could set myself a goal of getting as many diamonds per hour as possible - whatever goal I choose it has an optimum way to be done.
Anything without a goal cannot be optimized. I believe that anything with a goal can have an optimal or equally optimal solution.
Both games come with many goals, either explicit or implicit. Players can opt to do all of them, or none of them. (edit: or some of them)
Yinan wrote:You're not increasing your own fun, you're only changing the relation of your fun vs. the fun of others in your favour. But the overall fun decreases.
imo, this is true. I think there is a reasonable discussion to be had for buffing late game belts. But I don't see any good arguments for nerfing or removing bots.
m44v wrote:It's clear to me that nobody wants logistics bots removed, is disingenuous to argue that those that see a problem with bots wants to force bot players to play with belts.
I would argue that the topic as been at least broached, hence it's not disingenuous to argue against that point eg:"This feels hostile, and in Twinsen's case, straight up gets one riled up to the point of wanting the damn bots removed."
Irregardless, my comment was clearly directed at a very specific argument. I actually find it rather careless and insulting of you to take my comment directed towards one argument, and then apply it to everybody.
I don't know how to resolve what I was talking about without removing bots or fundamentally changing the mechanics of belts, hence my comment. Let's look at the context:
I made the statement that belts can't do what bots can do. The counter argument was the they can, it's just much more difficult. My thoughts were: I don't see a way to fix the complexity issue without fundamentally changing what bots are or removing them (effectively the same thing in this context). The problem isn't a throughput issue, but a space and logistical one. Therefore, my argument was that a fundamental change must occur to either bots or belts to bring them in line with each other. This is inline with what I said. Naturally I didn't tackle the bringing belts in line with bots as I don't think that's even a possibility.
Even if my argument isn't correct it was made honestly.
If you want to have an honest debate with me I'm more than open to it, but please to not attack my character by claiming that I am being disingenuous. I find that particularly insulting due to my religious beliefs.