Ropeway conveyor above the factory...

[hitzu]

Once I've build a rail it's there forever because of how long it takes to set it up.

Once I've build a rail it's there forever because of how long it takes to DECONSTRUCT it!

[ssilk]

In my mind it would oversimlify the process of playing with logistics. It would be like placing two teleporters and transporting stuff on them.

Teleports was indeed one idea out of many, but they transport in zero time. The ropeway needs some time. Let's say at maximum speed (everything is researched) it is as fast or a bit faster then the blue belt.
That's not a teleporter!

Creating layouts - that's why I love this game! The thing is when you try to imagine and come up with the best solution in particular context, that what this game is about! And you just suggest to connect two points in space with no restrictions, with no problems to think about.

It should be as simple as possible, cause it is needed to connect the layouts. You will have more than enough logistic problems to fill and empty the stations.
And once it is simple, it could be made more complex. It's really complicated the other way around.
No problem:
- Poles cannot be placed everywhere (Not going over water)
- It cannot have any direction
- limit throughput
- the stations need much space
- ...

ropeways should be able to turn between poles like the wires on electric poles

Not for this. I know, the pic on the first page about Darwinia is by me (https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... 977#p63288 ). You see, that the ropeway has turns. But I don't think in Factorio it is not needed.
Really, I think that you mean you can use that for only 50 tiles or so. But that makes no sense. It will make sense to use it, if it would be otherwise too complicated to use it. And - as said above - ropeway will not be really cheap. It will cost a lot more, than just simple belts - especially with boxes.
It is also a bit a technical reason, cause it is much simpler to program without turns. And if we really need them, I think in the first version we don't need such turns and the turning points should be bigger, than just a pole. A bit of realismn.

internal consistency means that once a player understands one system they'll much more easily figure out others

I don't see a need to say "I have poles, so everything with poles needs to behave the same".

[Bleda]

You don't have to care so much about transportation speed in factorio. If you have a constant flow of resources, what difference does it make wether it takes an item one second or a minute to get from a to b, as long as the throughput is high enough? In the end, it is a bit like teleportation, the way you suggest it.

I would also strongly prefer a ropeway that I have to build myself! One that can be a challenge to set up and that gives room for innovations and clever layouts. I would restrict them so there can't be any crossings. And maybe restrict their length? Isn't there a limit to how long the rope of a cablecar can be in reality? You would then have to build intermediate and crossing stations, maybe even with some belts and smart inserters for intelligent routing. If you allow players to just connect any two spots without any further thinking, the easiest and most efficient layout will just be a huge web of point-to-point connections. basically the same that logisitc robots would do, but with ropes.

[hitzu]

And maybe restrict their length? Isn't there a limit to how long the rope of a cablecar can be in reality?

It is. The cable has its mass and tensil limit factor. The longer the cable the havier it is the more force you have to apply to move it and more force to strain it.

The same is for real coveyor belts actually. So probably there should be no length limits for ropeway in the game because belts also has no their limits.

[Cordylus]

And maybe restrict their length? Isn't there a limit to how long the rope of a cablecar can be in reality?

It is. The cable has its mass and tensil limit factor. The longer the cable the havier it is the more force you have to apply to move it and more force to strain it.

In the real life ropeways have a tension stations, and additional engines on the way, so the distance can be very high. The world's longest ropeway had 96 km long.

I prefer no restrictions in the length of ropeway. Maybe longer lines could be mowing slower than short, but not other limitations.
I also prefer building ropeways in the power lines style, because it would be much more configurable.

That's how I imagine load/unload stations:

I think that it can't be much bigger than roboport.

[hitzu]

That's how I imagine load/unload stations:

But seriously speaking I would like to have modular stations just to fit train stations of any lenght without intermediate belts.

[ssilk]

You don't have to care so much about transportation speed in factorio. If you have a constant flow of resources, what difference does it make wether it takes an item one second or a minute to get from a to b, as long as the throughput is high enough? In the end, it is a bit like teleportation, the way you suggest it.

No, it makes really a big difference, how fast your items are moving, cause every moved item cannot be used for something else.

That's what many oversee, when they build large belts or say "I don't need trains".

Indeed we can calculate that, I would call it "storagetime per tile".
Maybe I write something about that, but so far: the time is much longer for a belt, then for a train. Not having an iron chest of resources, because it's on the way, plays a role.

I would also strongly prefer a ropeway that I have to build myself! One that can be a challenge to set up and that gives room for innovations and clever layouts. I would restrict them so there can't be any crossings. And maybe restrict their length? Isn't there a limit to how long the rope of a cablecar can be in reality? You would then have to build intermediate and crossing stations, maybe even with some belts and smart inserters for intelligent routing.

I think no crossings are a good idea. Building it yourself: Maybe. I don't see there a potential: It's not interacting with something on the ground, it's just a connection. I would prefer automatic building and you will see, that I'm right.
I don't know how long this can be, but 10 kilometers is no problem and that is far beyond of what I've ever build. In other words: no restrictions, but it doesn't make sense to build such a long ropeway, cause of the amount of unuseable items, they transport. See above,

If you allow players to just connect any two spots without any further thinking, the easiest and most efficient layout will just be a huge web of point-to-point connections. basically the same that logisitc robots would do, but with ropes.

You mean, that the ropeway transports stuff, if needed? Not sure. A system like in Portal would be cool.
But with ropeway it takes much too much time to move the items. For such stuff I would mean, the pneumatic delivery suggestion is better for that: https://forums.factorio.com/forum/vie ... f=6&t=7150
Also an implementation of the Portal delivery system looks supercool for me.

[hitzu]

@ssilk
Why you so insistently propose such a new game mechanic that would require much more effort to code and debug, mechanic that have no analogies in existent game, and in the same time in the best case it would give no big advantages over classic one, in the worst case would take away fun of solving problems?

[keyboardhack]

Have to agree with ssilk on the length and construction. Making everything automated and not limiting the length is really the way to go. You can always just build a new rope way to extend another if range was limited and manually placing a long ropeway would be a really tedious task,

Btw i really don't think we should consider code complexity and debugging. Let that be up to the developers, it's kinda their job

[hitzu]

Have to agree with ssilk on the length and construction. Making everything automated and not limiting the length is really the way to go. You can always just build a new rope way to extend another if range was limited and manually placing a long ropeway would be a really tedious task,

Everyone here agree that there should be no lenght limit factor.

Btw i really don't think we should consider code complexity and debugging. Let that be up to the developers, it's kinda their job

I'm judging on the base of what implemented and what did not.

Another important factor in the game design is the uniformity of the UI across all aspects.

[keyboardhack]

I'm judging on the base of what implemented and what did not.

Again we can't and shouldn't take into account how hard it's to code. for all we know they might have a single method to connect everything automatically.

Another important factor in the game design is the uniformity of the UI across all aspects.

i am glad that you agree with me. The ropeway should, like all underground belts and all poles, automatically connect with each other automatically.


I do however think there should be a limit on how sharp corners the ropeway can take. if the corner is too sharp, then the ropeway wagons will begin to go through each other which wouldn't make much sense. I think a max angle should be ~90deg

[hitzu]

i am glad that you agree with me. The ropeway should, like all underground belts and all poles, automatically connect with each other automatically.

Ok, then there should be no corners, cause underground belts have no corners. Also they should go in NS and WE directions only like belts and pipes.

I do however think there should be a limit on how sharp corners the ropeway can take.

If you agee with ssilk, then you probably know that he propose to have no corners at all. What he propose: you place two stations and get a straight connection automatically with fake towers. It would be nothing but low-tech cheap logistic network. Stations act like requester and provider chests, and boxes on the rope are nothing but drones that don't require power and roboport coverage area. It's like cheating and would bring no fun cause it would be so easy.

[Bleda]

The only problem about slow and long connections is that you have to wait for the first item to arrive. But you have to wait only once, so unless it takes like an hour, it doesn't really matter.

I agree with hitzu. I don't get any satisfaction just out of seeing big numbers on the production screen. It is only satisfying if you feel like you built a great factory. If you modify the game to handle more items with the same or even simpler infrastructure, you can just as well take a screenshot of the production screen, photoshop some zeroes in and post it on the internet.

[katyal]

Honestly I look at the threads about large or heavy items, about bridge cranes and ropeways, boxed ores and hoppers for trains. They are all ideas for taking throughput to the next level but unfortunately I think we are ahead of ourselves. We need something to build that will require all these advanced logistics and I don't think "n rocket defense /minute" will cut it we need something that:

• is big
• consumes TONS of resources
• actually DOES something useful

I hate to post this now because I still don't know what that could be but until there is something more to aspire to all these fantastic ideas serve no purpose. That makes me sad because these are all things I would really like to see come to life in factorio.

[ssilk]

I thought a lot if I should answer to all of this... Well.

The first about the pessimistic post of katyal: I'm sure we need this. In one or other ways. The targets will shift. We'll need to built a rocket, start into space. See the last FFF's. We'll need more throughput.

Back to the rest. I'm currently in ski-holiday. Ropeways anywhere. Long. Straight. Simple. Slow. Transport as many people from A to B. I don't need to argue: That't the truth with most of the ropeways in the world. Curves for ropeways are complicated and are avoided. They have nearly always only two stations and have no logistic which cares about transporting stuff into different directions. What goes in lands on the other side. Super simple.

Gameplay-wise this changes! Or might change. Not sure. We don't know yet, what's better. Nobody does.

We only know this:
- Factorio needs a fourth transport medium, slow, high throughput for two reasons: a) transport masses of items from small outposts to a central point (big outpost or factory) b) transport things over the ground, important in very thight areas.
- A ropeway can fulfill all those needs. And it looks good. And matches so cool into the game. I like it.

The problem is: How should it work in detail?
Too many people have to many different visions about it. This includes me.
(As always I brought too much things into this discussions. Boxes for examples. A completely different suggestion.)

About the rest? <shrug> My opinion keeps: Make a ropeway as simple as possible (straight, not connecting) and add complexity and balancing later if needed - as with everything in Factorio.

[hitzu]

@ssilk
Realim is not the argument for games at all. Especially when the game is about alien planet colonization and space bugs.
You can say that turns for ropewys are avoided IRL. I can say the same for conveyor belts. I can say that any train in the world cannot make so sharp turn even with smallest speed possible. I can say that there are no such machine in a world that could assemble every thing you want.
You can say: make building simpler. I can say: make a WIN button, it would even simpler.
I hope you get me right.

[katyal]

Sorry didn't mean to come off as pessimistic but the ideas I've mentioned in my previous post are ideas that I've been following for a while and the discussions always seem to come back to the same point. I guess I was just hoping to shake things up a bit and maybe get some fresh ideas.

Back to ropeways, as usual ssilk is right More specifically when he says

The problem is: How should it work in detail?
Too many people have to many different visions about it. This includes me.
(As always I brought too much things into this discussions. Boxes for examples. A completely different suggestion.)

Well what are the details?

1. Should ropeways be only straight?
2. Should ropeways have a limited length? If so how long?
3. Should pole placement be automatic?
4. How big should stations be?
5. When powering a ropeway do you need electricity at one station or both?
6. What can be carried in ropeways? Anything? Just ores ?
7. What throughput should a ropeway have?

I got these questions from rereading our previous posts. I'll post again with my opinions when I get home.

Have a great ski trip ssilk!!!!!

[Bleda]

That's a pretty good summary. And the answer to these things depend on the function the ropeway should have in the game.

• Connect mining outposts over medium distances
• Boost general transport capacity in late-game
• Simplify transportation
• Provide a way to transport things across places where belts or rails don't fit (compact factories, lakes)
• ... ?

And I think this depends a lot on where the existing transportation methods are heading and how the end-game will look like in the future. And then, of course it depends on personal preference and the way you play the game. There is already a pro-robot section and an anti-robot section among players. And afaik there are even some people who don't use trains. While this is ok, it would still be desireable to design the means of transportation in a way that all of them are fun and serve a purpose in the game better than the others.

[katyal]

Well what are the details?

1. Should ropeways be only straight?
2. Should ropeways have a limited length? If so how long?
3. Should pole placement be automatic?
4. How big should stations be?
5. When powering a ropeway do you need electricity at one station or both?
6. What can be carried in ropeways? Anything? Just ores ?
7. What throughput should a ropeway have?

1. I think ropeways should be as straight as possible without making them a chore to setup (Edited to fix a typo that was completely changing the meaning of this one)
2. No limit on length. Keeping them straight will be limiting enough and one of the usages I find interesting is the idea of using ropeways to pass over obstacles rather than having to clear cut a path thru a forest for example.
3. For convenience I would say yes place the pole automatically, but its not a deal breaker. I'd rather have ropeways with manual placement of the poles than not have ropeways.
4. Make the stations 2x2 or 3x3 honestly whatever is necessary to make the graphic and animation look good.
5. I don't see a reason to limit ropeways to ore
6. I see the little wagons as being able to carry a stack and max throughput should be somewhere between fast and express belts so 1000 - 1600 items/minute

I also think the stations should have shoots for unloading just like mining drills.
If the output backs up it should stop.

[ssilk]

@ssilk
Realim is not the argument for games at all. Especially when the game is about alien planet colonization and space bugs.
You can say that turns for ropewys are avoided IRL. I can say the same for conveyor belts. I can say that any train in the world cannot make so sharp turn even with smallest speed possible. I can say that there are no such machine in a world that could assemble every thing you want.
You can say: make building simpler. I can say: make a WIN button, it would even simpler.
I hope you get me right.

No.
When you look exactly (zoom in and eventually reduce game speed) at every single entity, you will see some quite realistic and some non-realistic stuff. Belts for example, the behavior of items on the belts fill some hours of reading in this forum. The robots, the chests. Everything. There are some really important details, that are also reflected in the graphics.
And of course some non-realistic, cause as you say: Realism is not an argument.
But in Factorio, after nearly 2 years now, seeing stuff coming and going, I take myself the right to say "Realism is in Factorio an quite small but essentially needed argument...".

And I think this depends a lot on where the existing transportation methods are heading and how the end-game will look like in the future. And then, of course it depends on personal preference and the way you play the game. There is already a pro-robot section and an anti-robot section among players. And afaik there are even some people who don't use trains. While this is ok, it would still be desireable to design the means of transportation in a way that all of them are fun and serve a purpose in the game better than the others.

Exactly: The usage is the key! For what will we really use a ropeway? The above points are a good guess. But really good gameplay happens when the first things are implemented.
For example: They added a bug and found the result useful.
Or some newbie says for example "Why don't we have areal tramway (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aerial_tramway#Terminology), where the cabins going back and forth?" and everybody cries "Yes, this is it, why could we forget that". Stupid example.

(By the way, today I was in this:

150er Tux

Such things cannot be planned.