Loader Poll - Trying to get an idea of what the opinions are

[MeduSalem]

I know I shouldn't do double posts but while fiddling around with the setups shown in my previous post I had another idea for the Loaders:

Loaders Concept 4.png (49.17 KiB) Viewed 5652 times

Each Loader has BOTH an Input Belt and an Output Belt Connection.

When opening the Loader properties Inside the Loader there are 3 things:

• Loader Contents:
  The filtered stacks with its current contents. To set a filter just click on the stack and select the filter. Right click to remove.
• Allow (Belt) Input:
  These checkboxes determine if the Loader is allowed to input items to this stack from the Input Belt Side. Clicking checks/unchecks it individually for each stack.
• Allow (Belt) Output:
  These checkboxes determine if the Loader is allowed to output items from this stack to the Output Belt Side. Clicking checks/unchecks it individually for each stack.

The exact implementation of the property window and its contents as well as default behavior is up for debate of course because I know it could be done differently or better obviously.


So what this means is that you can basically use the Loader in-line of belts and it allows items to run from the Input Side through the Loader to the Output side and items from the filtered stacks are either kept inside or are being output if you chose so. Inserters can manipulate (push/pop) the stacks like a regular chest.

I see applications for that feature even in Train Loading/Unloading because ONE and SAME Loader could be used to Load and Unload a train wagon at the same time just by using the right Filter Settings and one Inserter facing Wagon->Loader and the other Loader->Wagon.

They could be made even more smart with Circuit Logic integration like changing the filters on signal or checking/unchecking individual checkboxes to control the item flow.

Don't know if it would be completely overpowered or not but it sounds like a possibility that could be explored. It surely would cut back on the amount of Splitters needed throughout the layouts. I found the amount of splitters being needed a bit problematic in my previous post with the various setups I exprimented around with. They made everything three times as hard and complex and at some point forced me to abuse the Underground Belt cheat to get around the space limitations and that's when I start to question myself if one wouldn't be better off just using inserters grabing directly from the belt instead.

That said I still wouldn't allow the Loader to directly Feed into Assemblers/Trains/Chests - You have to use Inserters to transfer between Loaders and other Items, that's the compromise. On top of that they should use tremendous amounts of energy, almost like assemblers or Beacons so you have to pay a price for the additional throughput and convenience.

[Zeblote]

The point is to not use inserters, your setup is still limited by inserter speed.

[Carl]

Just want to note, i voted for no change but that was before realising elecricity cost was included in the running cost. Given they are to compete with bots they should obviously have a cost, and a decent one too, i'd say a couple of hundred kW each. Anyone who's built a mega bot network knows what i mean by that.

[MeduSalem]

The point is to not use inserters, your setup is still limited by inserter speed.

And that is bad... how exactly?

Fast Inserters profiting from Inserter Stack Size bonus have already lots of throughput compared to picking up from a belt. I almost never ran into a scenario where the Inserter Stack Size bonus became a bottlenack, even if I boost an Assembler with Speed Module 3s and if so placing a second Fast Inserter got the job done. Loaders are 2x1, so they allow 2 Inserters along the side... so they work fine in that aspect.

That should be MORE than enough and if it doesn't then I think you are using some kind of mod with Assemblers and Modules far beyond the capabilities of what 1-2 Fast Inserters + Inserter Stack Size bonus can do and the game shouldn't be balanced around a mod. The mods should take care of that themselves by providing faster Inserters or other ways to deal with their overpowered equipment.

So feeding an Assembler directly from an Fast/Express belt is pointless in Vanilla Factorio. The assembler will never be able to craft away the resources as fast as they come in. There is no throughput to be gained from that approach. Believe me, I tried increasing the throughput with Compact Bot Factory Setups where everything is paved with SM3s and and the Inserters were not really a problem as long as they can profit from the Stack Size Bonus, not even with 0.5 Second Crafting Time Recipes (Copper Cable, Electronic Circuits, f.e.) there is a throughput problem with using Inserters moving between Chest/Assembler or Assembler/Assembler.

And even if Assemblers were this fast, then you would only end up consuming all the contents of the belt with the first 2-3 Assemblers, leaving nothing for Assemblers down the line, meaning that they are useless or require even more belts in parallel. Congratulation, you compactified the factory so much that there is no factory.

Also having to place the Loader in 90° to an Assembler to be able to feed directly into said assembler without an Inserter in between causes a LOT of trouble when trying to find more space efficient setups. You can't get around the problem of having to use 90° turn belts too, increasing the footprint. And all that ugliness for something that doesn't even provide more throughput because the Assembler/Furnaces can't really handle it anyways.

If the problem is the Train Stations then I can't help you because I think that there is no real throughput problem with them anyways, not even the way they are currently, except that there is sometimes some minor imbalance in item distribution due to how splitters work and thanks to single-sided belt loading. Both of which would become obsolete with Loaders even if they have to be combined with Inserters.

And directly feeding chests would basically only profit Belt based Storage systems or the Robotnetworks and that limits their usefulness.

I have thought this through multiple times already and for the sake of consistency and practical usage scenarios using Inserters between Loaders and the items they should work with is the better approach. Loaders directly feeding inside the machine/item causes more problems than it solves because of how most items don't really support the throughput and how layouts become so nasty that it is no improvement to completely Inserter based setups.

[byronczimmer]

How about a dumb, non-electricity burning, 1x2 chest or 1x3 chest that holds more stuff?

That + smart Inserters would be a much simpler solution than almost everything presented here for "Loaders" with all the restrictions people want to put on them.


Edit: Followup

Overall, it seems that the big limitation is that inserter stack bonuses are not applied when transferring between "belts" and "containers/assemblers", so the point of the original Friday Facts post (at least to me) was that loaders were intended to overcome that limitation.

Moving materials from a belt straight to/from a container (chest) via loader allows one to effectively create a buffer (of one chest) in-line with the belt system it is buffering with a total of 5 squares, either in a straight line or an "L" shape. Buffers are (from what I've seen, read and experienced) good sometimes, but very, very bad otherwise.

Much of the limitation of storage systems is that right now our options are:
1x1: chest (wood/steel)
2x2: car
2x6 ish: train car
*x*: Assemblers/Furnaces that can pre-load a one unit buffer for the 'next' item and buffer some amount of output

So again, how about a 1x2, 1x3 or maybe even a 2x2 chest?

[onebit]

May as well not add them if they need lubricant.

Electricity is reasonable.

[bobucles]

I'm struggling to figure out what a loader is supposed to do. Can't you just empty chests onto a slde belt and merge it with a main belt to get max compression?

Loaders might be more useful for helping logistic bots access to belts. Currently it is very nauseating to pull items for bots or have bots place items, because you need to set up multiple chests and all that.

[MalcolmCooks]

So if loaders were able to feed items directly into assembly machines, furnaces ect, but doing so would have no real advantages over using inserters, why even allow that behaviour? If it's not going to be useful, why include it in the game?

[Zeblote]

So if loaders were able to feed items directly into assembly machines, furnaces ect, but doing so would have no real advantages over using inserters, why even allow that behaviour? If it's not going to be useful, why include it in the game?

Because someone might want to do use them like that?

"I can't see why this would be useful so we should prevent everyone from ever trying it"

[bobucles]

The biggest resource choke points are moving logistic networks on to belts, or moving train stuff onto belts. Loaders should probably pick one of those.

[mooklepticon]

I'm struggling to figure out what a loader is supposed to do. Can't you just empty chests onto a slde belt and merge it with a main belt to get max compression?

Loaders might be more useful for helping logistic bots access to belts. Currently it is very nauseating to pull items for bots or have bots place items, because you need to set up multiple chests and all that.

IMO, we need something between fast inserter and logistics network. Fast inserters are outdated by late game. Alternatively, we need something to compete with logistics network. Belts are still higher throughput at max capacity, but loading them is tedious unless you're using massively parallel inserters.

[AcolyteOfRocket]

I'm only a new player, so take this with a pinch of salt but.. they don't look like they would add anything useful to the game, except maybe give an easy way to near-side feed a belt from a chest, which can probably be easily done anyway, I just haven't figured out how yet

If you do want to implement it with a higher cost, one additional cost you may want to consider is the footprint.

What is the design driver of the change ? Player feedback ? Designer vision ?? Bug fix ?

[Zeblote]

Can't you just empty chests onto a slde belt and merge it with a main belt to get max compression?

Yes, and that is exactly what the loader is suposed to replace.

[The Phoenixian]

A thought: I do think loaders need balance, but none of the options listed seem quite right.

I think the material requirements are on the right track, as loaders and unloaders do need a puzzle element to go with them beyond just being 2x1, but neither are quite right: Electricity requirements are something but an electrical cost is only a very minor issue for any individual building and is usually more of a concern for the base as a whole. Supplying lubricant on the other hand is a major construction and logistical issue but likely too much so. Certainly it limits the use of loaders in outlying regions such as train stations.

So I have another idea to proffer:

If we have just one level of loader and unloader, and it feeds onto a yellow belt at full speed, a red belt at half speed and a blue belt at one third speed, then as your factory advances, the complexity of using loaders increases if you wish to maintain full throughput. At the beginning of the game you have something you can just slap down. In the mid game, you are asked to use a splitter. And at the end of the game, the game now asks you to not just split, but split into thirds for best material efficiency.

Certainly any experienced player can do so easily, assuming they choose to bother, but it's a nice little niggling problem for newbies and for the rest, there's a lack of space efficiency that now comes with loaders on high level belts is a consistent challenge.

Now, that's probably not enough on it's own, but it does have the dual advantage of meaning you need only a single tech, and only one entity in the build menu.

[zytukin]

They should at least use electricity.

As for all the other options, any player that wants them to act in these methods could simply only use them in those methods.
ie,
if somebody thinks they should be chest only, they could only just use them for chests
if somebody thinks they should be train only, then they can simply use them only for trains.
if somebody thinks they shouldn't be in the game, they could easily not build any in their factories.


I would use them.
Would sure beat having to build 3-5 fast inserters for fast loading/unloading of belts/chests.

[Koder]

They should at least use electricity.

As for all the other options, any player that wants them to act in these methods could simply only use them in those methods.

The player having to impose artificial constraints on something because it's op is not as elegant as having it relatively balanced upon implementation in the first place. I have good hopes that devs will take our feedback and come up with something decent for all of us.

We're just passionate about the game, especially when discussing something like the loader that could potentially harm the core gameplay if not implemented correctly.

Cheers.

[Zeblote]

The player having to impose artificial constraints on something because it's op

That it is better than the thing it was designed to replace, does not mean it is "op".

You could apply the same logic to flying bots and splitters and never get anywhere.

[Koder]

The player having to impose artificial constraints on something because it's op

That it is better than the thing it was designed to replace, does not mean it is "op".

You could apply the same logic to flying bots and splitters and never get anywhere.

Good point, it was unfair for me to say that it is OP. I'll wait for the first iteration before I make more opinions about it. I just hope it doesn't trivialize a huge part of the game. I'm sure there are other players that agree.

[zytukin]

They should at least use electricity.

As for all the other options, any player that wants them to act in these methods could simply only use them in those methods.

The player having to impose artificial constraints on something because it's op is not as elegant as having it relatively balanced upon implementation in the first place. I have good hopes that devs will take our feedback and come up with something decent for all of us.

We're just passionate about the game, especially when discussing something like the loader that could potentially harm the core gameplay if not implemented correctly.

Cheers.

A player thinking they should only be for chests not using them for things other then chests is an artificial constraint? Seems more like a person choosing to play the game the way they want to play it. Providing players with the choice is the most elegant thing in my opinion. That way everybody wins, every player can use them as they see fit.

How is it more elegant to have them limited by the devs? If they end up being chest only, then anybody who wants to use them for rail cars is now forced to play the game the way the chest people want to play it. Whereas if up to the player, both parties would be happy instead of only one party.

Even if they are made a certain way by the devs, a player could make a mod to remove this limitation, thus making any developer imposed limitations completely pointless and in the end still allows players to make the choice by themselves. Less work on the devs to not program in limitations and thus less work for the modding community to remove limitations that prevent people from playing the game the way they like and thus less work for players to keep their games running smoothly with mods and this allows them to spend more time playing.

[MeduSalem]

Supplying lubricant on the other hand is a major construction and logistical issue but likely too much so. Certainly it limits the use of loaders in outlying regions such as train stations.

I agree with that. Lubricant seemed like a possibility at first but when thinking more in-depth about it it would cause more tedious problems than it solves.

But electricity on the other hand is okay because you will probably have electricity around somewhere nearby anyways.

So I have another idea to proffer:

If we have just one level of loader and unloader, and it feeds onto a yellow belt at full speed, a red belt at half speed and a blue belt at one third speed, then as your factory advances, the complexity of using loaders increases if you wish to maintain full throughput. At the beginning of the game you have something you can just slap down. In the mid game, you are asked to use a splitter. And at the end of the game, the game now asks you to not just split, but split into thirds for best material efficiency.

Certainly any experienced player can do so easily, assuming they choose to bother, but it's a nice little niggling problem for newbies and for the rest, there's a lack of space efficiency that now comes with loaders on high level belts is a consistent challenge.

Please not... More Splitters due to a Loader not being able to run at Fast/Express belt speed would render the Loaders plain and simple horrible.

Don't know if you have seen the screenshots of my experimental setups a few pages earlier (viewtopic.php?p=133747#p133747), but the setups will already be "challenging enough" without imposing a speed limit on the loaders. Also there is simply no room in layouts for the additional loaders/splitters as you suggest. If you would force an artificial speed limit at loaders then nearly nobody will use them because of how it is so much easier and more space efficient to just use regular inserters grabbing directly from the belt when comparing the necessary splitter contraptions. Due to how a Splitter is required with each Loader it is already like as if the Loader is 2x2 in size due to the Splitter overhead.

And the Loaders also try to avoid the splitter-balancing mess in the first place... So having to deal with 1/3s would be counterproductive.