Factorio Forums

WAREHOUSES

This has to be added at some point in the games existance save space than having many steel chests connected to belts and inserters. Maybe the warehouse can have a grid GUI when you press a edit button in normal GUI like the new module armours grid GUI so that you can add chests to the warehouse to increasw capacity to a certain point(different graphoc for each chest added and depending on the chest used)

Hmm I'm not really sure what you are aiming for with this suggestion? I would imagine in some ways this could potentially break 'balance' with regards to the intended design of the game. But one of the developers would have to comment on that aspect. I think storage is mostly fine.

I think some mods have already implemented it, but I would find it interessing to get a 2x2 or 3x3 chest with very high capacity (more than just 4 or 9 small chests) or a big chest that can be filled directly by belt without the need of inserters Just dropping stuff in from a ramp above also outgoing belt line, that just drops things out the chest completely random. Would be a great storage for iron or copper ores or coal

I am actually against small buildings capable of storing humongous amounts of resources. It encourages hoarding. While it doesnt matter much now but with addition of multiplayer this can negatively affect the experience.

Garm wrote:I am actually against small buildings capable of storing humongous amounts of resources. It encourages hoarding. While it doesnt matter much now but with addition of multiplayer this can negatively affect the experience.

tbh I agree. "Space" is essentially a resource in this sort of game. The space with which you have to store things for example. It's nice to have progression in the form of say... a few tiers of chests. But beyond that there should be a limit. Honestly if you really want to create a large 'storage' warehouse... just designate a large area for strictly storage and build an isolated logistics storage network there with a provider chest and just dump everything onto the belt the leads to it. Tada. Your warehouse. It'll still take the space. It'll just be out of your 'view' and work area.

It would be nice to have some sort of a "dump", though.
Even wooden chest storage density is enough. It's just that whenever you want to use more tiles for storage, you need to connect them all with inserters and that doesn't really make sense. The storage should be more passive. Or explicitly active (space curving pseudo-science shenanigans).

Coolthulhu wrote:It would be nice to have some sort of a "dump", though.

Create a disconnected robot network with nothing but storage chests and one provider closest to your base, 'dump' items into provider and robots will move them to the storage (since nothing wants them). Done.
But yes, 'space' is definitely a resource.

How about introducing an attribute "bulkable" to some items?

Bulkable items can be put into silos. Silos can take a lot of them. Belts can directly throw it into them (without inserter) and it is at the same time also outputted onto a belt as fast as possible. Internally there are lots of stacks and if an stack is empty it takes randomly another (the item types are shuffled a bit).

Bulkable: all raw materials (copper, ore, stone, coal), water (generate hot water on storage) and later also oil?

The usage for that is at train stations, where space is important.

My concern is actually about most basic resources. Since it is hard to predict how much one would need in end game materials players would stock up on most basic types anyhow, as such bulk items will have same effect as warehouses in terms of hoarding.


Besides - with logistical networks it is extremely easy to create humongous storage complexes even now - why simplify a game even further?

Well, this is my thousands post here. So I try to make it a bit longer

I don't see, why players should tend to stock. And if so: why not? I've no problem with that. I think this belongs to a learning curve, the player sooner or later will realize... Storing items are not always a good idea, indeed I would say in most cases. But it helps a lot, if you have enough resources.

There is a concrete problem, why I suggest such "bulkable" things: when you use trains you have currently no good opportunity as to create for every item one train station. This is because you cannot really control the speed, in which the resources are mined. The source is far away... If you would put all resources into one train station, which is much more efficient, you have to sort them. For example the wagons are unloaded by smart inserters, one side of the track for copper, the other for iron. This works fine, as long the delivered amount matches the needed, everything fine, but there is always (!) a point, when this makes more problems. I would describe it with "overfilling"

Such silos are not really a solution. The end-solution is to control the mining from that far distant. But that needs to be researched. Or you drive there and do something. You need time!

With the silos, I would call them better "buffers" you buy time. You take credit, because sooner or later the trains are blocked with items, so you can react; turn some mines off, or get more resources of the other type. And the second is speeding up time to built such a buffer. Currently it takes a lot of time to make such a storage/buffer, that fits the available space and the storing needs lots of energy (inserters).

With a silo, or anything which stores the raw material fast and simple, this is much, much easier.

I think the easiest and simplest way is to allow a 2x2 storage facility, which is crafted from 5 steel chests + 5 steel and stores 5 steel chests worth of items.

Things go to and from it with inserters.

ssilk wrote:Well, this is my thousands post here. So I try to make it a bit longer

I don't see, why players should tend to stock. And if so: why not? I've no problem with that. I think this belongs to a learning curve, the player sooner or later will realize... Storing items are not always a good idea, indeed I would say in most cases. But it helps a lot, if you have enough resources.

There is a concrete problem, why I suggest such "bulkable" things: when you use trains you have currently no good opportunity as to create for every item one train station. This is because you cannot really control the speed, in which the resources are mined. The source is far away... If you would put all resources into one train station, which is much more efficient, you have to sort them. For example the wagons are unloaded by smart inserters, one side of the track for copper, the other for iron. This works fine, as long the delivered amount matches the needed, everything fine, but there is always (!) a point, when this makes more problems. I would describe it with "overfilling"

Such silos are not really a solution. The end-solution is to control the mining from that far distant. But that needs to be researched. Or you drive there and do something. You need time!

With the silos, I would call them better "buffers" you buy time. You take credit, because sooner or later the trains are blocked with items, so you can react; turn some mines off, or get more resources of the other type. And the second is speeding up time to built such a buffer. Currently it takes a lot of time to make such a storage/buffer, that fits the available space and the storing needs lots of energy (inserters).

With a silo, or anything which stores the raw material fast and simple, this is much, much easier.

Congratulations

Well first of all I do not believe that is a real problem - It is similar to comparing mixed item belt getting overfilled due to negligence. My own complexes usually have dedicated wagon for each resource. if the demand is high I deploy entire trains for each resource, but I never mix.

As such I do not see this as a problem that warrants such controversial solution.

Secondary - we already have buffers - chests which can be built into unique designs based on player preference.

Tertiary - this is big - I believe it is better to have emergent gameplay (Eve, DF) instead of scripted one. Storage complexes made by players from chests are a form of an emergent gameplay, pre-designed storage buildings are part of the scripted one. Problem there lies in replayability - players would be less bored playing again and again if the designs they make are malleable, building a rigid structure can only be fun but a few times, later it becomes a mundane task.

e.g. - most enjoyable aspect for me in DF - is digging cavers - one of the most common tasks possible turned into neverending fountain of enjoyment specifically because of that.

Fourth - about hoarding - there is also psychological aspect due to immense buffer you separate two concepts, that make this game attractive: the task (acquiring resource) and reward (making stuff from said resources), this is mostly subconscious but eventually players will grow "disenchanted" crafting from seemingly neverending storage, or stockpiling into one.

Fifth - Are you saying the game is too hard? what is the purpose of intentionally making it easier?



As such I will state once more - potential risks of adding such structure greatly outweigh the possible benefits, sorry. There are many more important and fun things developers can add instead of bigger chests.

Garm wrote: Well first of all I do not believe that is a real problem - It is similar to comparing mixed item belt getting overfilled due to negligence. My own complexes usually have dedicated wagon for each resource. if the demand is high I deploy entire trains for each resource, but I never mix.

Yes. Not mixing is a good solution, as said (...for every item one station is also a solution...). It is currently the only working method.

But the afford to do that is extremely high and when we compare that with the reality you see, that it is very expensive. Just imagine, how it would be, if we have cars, which can transport only one item type. And the reason is only, that at the target there would be otherwise no space left to put everything out. No. To make the game more realistic, it's an idea to to enable mix transports. I see that buffers as one small step into that direction.

As such I do not see this as a problem that warrants such controversial solution.

I don't see it controversial. This theme has a long history and it comes up nearly every month.

Secondary - we already have buffers - chests which can be built into unique designs based on player preference.

I'm fine with the chests. I experimented a lot things with them. The problem I have with them is, that they need much time to built. Too much.
What I want is something, which I can put instead/above an existing belt. Finished. Nothing more needed.

Tertiary - this is big - I believe it is better to have emergent gameplay (Eve, DF) instead of scripted one. Storage complexes made by players from chests are a form of an emergent gameplay, pre-designed storage buildings are part of the scripted one. Problem there lies in replayability - players would be less bored playing again and again if the designs they make are malleable, building a rigid structure can only be fun but a few times, later it becomes a mundane task.

e.g. - most enjoyable aspect for me in DF - is digging cavers - one of the most common tasks possible turned into neverending fountain of enjoyment specifically because of that.

Well, we have here a game with the most emergence I ever saw. And I cannot compare it with dwarf factory, never played it. I spoke from something completely different and dont understand you.

My point is, that the game needs more speed. Blue prints are a super duper point to gain more speed (ever thought about the fact, that blueprint will reduce the emergency of Factorio very much?). I don't want to handle with that. I'm eventually at some place, far away from my main factory and I need to buy time. I haven't researched blue prints yet and it would need to much time. I need just a simple solution. And I think my suggestion is such a super easy thing.

Fourth - about hoarding - there is also psychological aspect due to immense buffer you separate two concepts, that make this game attractive: the task (acquiring resource) and reward (making stuff from said resources), this is mostly subconscious but eventually players will grow "disenchanted" crafting from seemingly neverending storage, or stockpiling into one.

I dunno what you mean. I want to store raw materials. Fast build, some storage to by time. You cannot store electric circuits or any other intermediate products in a silo. But you really need so much of the raw material, that this makes much sense.

Fifth - Are you saying the game is too hard? what is the purpose of intentionally making it easier?

You tell me, that I think the game is too hard??
Like In your last sentence, you state, that you know better than the developers, what is good for the game.
I recommend some sleep and a good cup of tea or coffee. I book this under bad mood.

ssilk wrote: Well, we have here a game with the most emergence I ever saw. And I cannot compare it with dwarf factory, never played it. I spoke from something completely different and dont understand you.

My point is, that the game needs more speed. Blue prints are a super duper point to gain more speed (ever thought about the fact, that blueprint will reduce the emergency of Factorio very much?). I don't want to handle with that. I'm eventually at some place, far away from my main factory and I need to buy time. I haven't researched blue prints yet and it would need to much time. I need just a simple solution. And I think my suggestion is such a super easy thing.

Yes this game is emergent, but it is still young, there aren't as many tools to provide emergence in all areas like in defence, but that is unrelated topic.

Blueprints in no way will hinder game emergence. They will make expansion faster, but each design will be designed by players and can be modified at will. Predesigned warehouses lack such ability.

If you need storage far away from your base, while you still haven't researched blueprints (as of now logistic robots) I do not believe you need anything else but few chests anyway.

ssilk wrote: I dunno what you mean. I want to store raw materials. Fast build, some storage to by time. You cannot store electric circuits or any other intermediate products in a silo. But you really need so much of the raw material, that this makes much sense.

I meant dopamine release due to reward and further brain association of it with the task involved - stuff that makes you interested in mundane and boring tasks within a game.

ssilk wrote: You tell me, that I think the game is too hard??

Well you are asking for a new building, that will make the game much easier, than it is now. It makes you sound as you are not satisfied how hard it is at the moment.

ssilk wrote: Like In your last sentence, you state, that you know better than the developers, what is good for the game.
I recommend some sleep and a good cup of tea or coffee. I book this under bad mood.

I did not state that, since this suggestion was not proposed by a developer. I've stated that compared to other suggestions made by players this suggestion (also made by player) is not as important.

Also, I am not in bad mood, tired nor I am grumpy - I like this game, and I have experience with other games, that used similar strategies and I saw the consequences. I have come here to share my experiences with you, other players, and developers hoping for civil discussion, nothing more.


I do not hate other players, I do not hate developers nor do I think they are inept. I did not come here to prove I am right - I've come here help the game be better. Only way I can do so is in providing my own insight of someone, who spent many years playing games, moderating communities, performing tasks of GM and QC as well as studying neurobiology.

Ok. I see, that I assumed wrong. But think also, you mixed something up here. I suggested off topically in this thread a thing, called silo, where you can put belts directly in and out, but only for raw materials. No warehouse.


And to continue off-topic:
I add another suggestion to this silo: what, if it takes a while, until the first item you filled in comes out? Well, I experimented a lot with splitters: place a long line of splitters one after other. Then start feeding this splitters. The first item comes out very fast, much faster then the belt is. But when you stop the feed, it takes a long time, until the last item comes out.

I think, this would be good for the silo, too. Assume, that the silo is high and it takes about 10-15 seconds for the first item to "fall down" and come out. The storage is also not very high, some thousands, maybe 12000? They have a disadvantage to the big chests, which store 6000 per tile. The silo is bigger (6-9 tiles), but stores "only" about the double. You may be able to use it at the train station to let the inserters fill the silo. Stacking is then very easy: just adding more silos.

Btw this is another reason: there are situations at the stations, where it is impossible to fill a belt with equal amounts from the chests. I mean that the chest, that are filled from the train are unfilled equally. I can say it, because I had tried that very hard. There are sometimes chests, which cannot be emptied into a belt, because the inserter is blocked by the other items on the belt. If you "repair" that, this problem appears some minutes later on another chest. With a silo, you can avoid that problem.

And the silos are more or less like a belt. Basic, fast and express silos needed. Should be available with iron chest or short after.

About silos - I've made similar suggestion in the past:

2. At later stages of the game it seems item belts become quite lacking due to inserter-belt limitation in throughput. Would it possible to add hopper-like structure that works as combination of chest above the belt. Items placed in that chest will automatically drop onto the belt below in all 4 slots at once.

Yeah. I know. And there are many others. When I think back it looks like there is really a need for it.