Loaders to require lubricant connection to function

[Earendel]

Loaders as they are now have too many advantages over inserters to be a balanced part of vanilla, but I have a proposal that might change that while also adding an additional logistics challenge.

The idea is that loaders would require lubricant to be piped in from the side. Side-by-side loaders would be able to pass the lubricant on to other loaders in the same way that electric mining drills can pass on sulphuric acid. The loaders would then consume 1 lubricant per X items moved (lets say 10k items for now).

This would add a logistics piping challenge in order to get the lubricant to the loaders. It also means there is more of an interesting decision to be made when deciding if and when to use loaders. There is a small but non-zero material cost to their ongoing function, if the increased throughput is not needed an inserter might be better.

[AileTheAlien]

This actually sounds pretty good, I think. It would simplify my train stops that have access to lubricant, although I bet I could have a train distribute that to the other train stops too...

[thereaverofdarkness]

I would like to see more uses for heavy oil.

[Aeternus]

Maybe a silly question but... what are "loaders"? I don't think I've seen them in vanilla or the mods I've played.

[AileTheAlien]

They're buildings that can load and unload an entire belt worth of stuff from containers. i.e. So you don't need crazy stack-inserter + balancer setups. Here's an example, and another one I found with 30 seconds in the search box on the mod portal. :)

[Aeternus]

So it's a belt-into-storage-chest kind of thing? I get it, thanks
It'd make more sense for them to require power to move items, rather then lube. I suppose they represent buildings with an internal bunch of inserters.

[5thHorseman]

I was similarly confused, seeing as this doesn't seem to be making a suggestion for any mod or mods in general, but for the stock game.

Seems first a request to add loaders to the game would be in order, before any suggestions on how to change them.

BTW those sound cool, though a bit OP.

[thereaverofdarkness]

So it's a belt-into-storage-chest kind of thing? I get it, thanks
It'd make more sense for them to require power to move items, rather then lube. I suppose they represent buildings with an internal bunch of inserters.

They should cost power and lubricant!

I think they're supposed to be an inclined belt that just dumps the stuff over. Taking stuff out of chests probably involves pushing the stuff up and then filtering it into position by pouring it through specially-shaped funnels. Machines like this exist in the real world.

[Lav]

Loaders as they are now have too many advantages over inserters to be a balanced part of vanilla...

No they don't. I'm playing a game with loaders now, and they're nowhere close to being a major part of landscape pretty much anywhere.

They're absolutely useless in production setups due to size and direction constraints. They're pretty useful in merging and balancing output from multiple rows of drills, where using splitter-based designs would take a ridiculous amount of space and would be ugly as sin (update: actually after reviewing my designs, loaders offer no serious advantages over splitters there). They're also fantastic for bulk storage, where inserters are completely useless anyway.

So they don't replace inserters in any role at all. Nowhere in my base I've found a place where a loader would be preferable to inserter. Even filling crates at rail stations is done by inserters (and train loading/unloading can only be done by inserters anyway) - I've actually tried a loader-based setup, and discarded it quickly.

They'd probably be useful in a main bus, replacing splitters (again, splitters, not inserters!) in lane balancing tasks, but they're a complete crap at balancing belts, and they would offer no guarantee of balanced resource flow when diverting contents from the main bus, thus ensuring that splitters still have an important role.

As far as I'm concerned, the entire idea that loaders are somehow better than inserters is voiced by people who never placed a single loader in a real game scenario. So far I haven't seen so much as a single screenshot that would actually demonstrate loaders superiority over inserters.

The item loaders actually compete with is splitter, not inserter, and they replace the splitter only in a limited number of tasks where splitter-based designs are ugly anyway (and in no way related to splitters stated primary purpose - i.e. splitting). They also have a unique niche of belt-based storage that has it's drawbacks, but is still useful - and something the game doesn't have until logistic bots appear.

The idea is that loaders would require lubricant to be piped in from the side. Side-by-side loaders would be able to pass the lubricant on to other loaders in the same way that electric mining drills can pass on sulphuric acid. The loaders would then consume 1 lubricant per X items moved (lets say 10k items for now).

This would add a logistics piping challenge in order to get the lubricant to the loaders. It also means there is more of an interesting decision to be made when deciding if and when to use loaders. There is a small but non-zero material cost to their ongoing function, if the increased throughput is not needed an inserter might be better.

In other words, make loaders ridiculously difficult and costly to use without improving their abilities in any way, while they're already a niche item.

No. Just no.

[Aeternus]

I can see some use for them with rail stations and mines - mine -(belt)> loader -(inserters)> train. If loaders can offer their inventory to the Logistics network, they'd also be useful for high volume belt-to-bot conversion or the reverse. But that'd just replace 4 stack inserters.

[Lav]

I can see some use for them with rail stations and mines - mine -(belt)> loader -(inserters)> train. If loaders can offer their inventory to the Logistics network, they'd also be useful for high volume belt-to-bot conversion or the reverse. But that'd just replace 4 stack inserters.

I'm actually using them with the mines - though so far they offer no advantage over splitters there, and for as long as loaders cost at least 50% of a splitter, they actually a worse investment. In fact, in a space-constrained setup I was forced to abandon loaders entirely, as loader-based designs are much less flexible space and direction-wise - even though I'm currently playing with a "loader first" approach - i.e. I always use loaders unless other designs are clearly superior.

Dumping a belt into a logistic chest is the same niche application that I've covered - loaders make storage easier. Naturally an item which primary function is bulk loading/unloading will outperform other inadequate tools in this area. People are using overcomplicated designs with stack inserters exactly because the game lacks a dedicated belt-to-container item.

[thereaverofdarkness]

Dumping a belt into a logistic chest is the same niche application that I've covered - loaders make storage easier. Naturally an item which primary function is bulk loading/unloading will outperform other inadequate tools in this area. People are using overcomplicated designs with stack inserters exactly because the game lacks a dedicated belt-to-container item.

I think you're confusing things here. You see the loader's ability to load/unload chests to/from belts as minor, even though it is potentially massively better than what inserters can do. You say of course it's better, that's the loader's purpose. But we say it's overpowered because it makes a part of the game much easier than it currently is in vanilla.

[British_Petroleum]

My idea for loaders was to make them only work with ores. If you think about it realistically, ores can just be dumped in a chest, but things like circuits, plates, etc. would need to be carefully stacked in a container, so you'd need to use inserters

[Lav]

Dumping a belt into a logistic chest is the same niche application that I've covered - loaders make storage easier. Naturally an item which primary function is bulk loading/unloading will outperform other inadequate tools in this area. People are using overcomplicated designs with stack inserters exactly because the game lacks a dedicated belt-to-container item.

I think you're confusing things here. You see the loader's ability to load/unload chests to/from belts as minor, even though it is potentially massively better than what inserters can do. You say of course it's better, that's the loader's purpose. But we say it's overpowered because it makes a part of the game much easier than it currently is in vanilla.

If an item is doing some jobs better than other items, it means that item has a role, not that it's OP. But your criteria will mark everything as OP until it is uniformly worse on all accounts, and thus not needed in the game.

Making the obvious logical step, railway is hugely OP - it allows huge throughput over belts or pipes. And really, using splitters to split the belt when you could use beautiful inserter/circuit designs? Way OP, plz nerf.

Now tell me, how many players bother with bulk storage until the advent of logistic bots? Not many I suspect - too much hassle with inserters. I definitely didn't, though I had some designs in my head for a long time. But now with loaders I do. The loaders didn't make the game ant easier - instead, they brought something new into the game that wasn't there before.

[5thHorseman]

Making the obvious logical step, railway is hugely OP - it allows huge throughput over belts or pipes. And really, using splitters to split the belt when you could use beautiful inserter/circuit designs? Way OP, plz nerf.

You can logically step both ways. Loaders aren't OP, so instantly teleporting a chestful of iron plates into a train a dozen chunks away isn't OP.

Just because splitters aren't OP doesn't mean loaders aren't OP. There's a continuum, and each thing in the game belongs somewhere on it. Those too far on either end should be changed or discarded or (in this case) not added.

I'm not saying loaders are OP or anything. I've never used them. However, they sound pretty OP.

[Earendel]

The lack of power consumption is a good point, they should really consume power too. I see a lot of modded multiplayer games where almost everything uses loaders because of the zero power cost. It would be interesting if they had a small but constant drain even while inactive instead of per-item cost. I think that would help solidify a role as high throughput loading/unloading and filtering devices.

Also I'd like to clarify that this is a suggestion to make loaders part of the base game (vanilla). They are not in the game now because, as far as I'm aware, the devs (and most people) feel that they would not be balanced. This is why a core part of my suggestion is that loaders consume lubricant (and power) in order to make them balanced, and therefore be a valid candidate to be included in vanilla.

@Lav, please stop derailing this thread. Even if some of your points are valid, the fact is that they're not in the game, so if you think they're not overpowered now then please make a separate thread asking for them to be added to vanilla unmodified and make your case for why there are already balanced there. Saying they're already balanced in this thread does not help anyone. Even IF we assume they are balanced now, then even so, having nerfed loaders in vanilla is better than having no loaders in vanilla.

[bobingabout]

I would like to see more uses for heavy oil.

Try playing my mods, you can end up pulling your hair out because you don't have enough heavy oil.

Also I disagree with the idea, not only would it require some crazy pipework to get lubricant to every loader, but consider that they're not enabled in the base game, if you have them at all, it's because you wanted to have them, the lubricant is an un-necessary complication to make things harder, and if you want things to be harder... use an inserter.


One thing that they could require though is Electricity, I did a little experiment last night and was actually amazed that where an inserter costs energy (burner or electricity), a loader doesn't.

[Lav]

The lack of power consumption is a good point, they should really consume power too. I see a lot of modded multiplayer games where almost everything uses loaders because of the zero power cost.

I really wonder what are the loader production costs in those games, if those loaders are modded, and what are the game settings. Because in normal game, inserters are much more convenient space-wise, their power cost isn't a problem (and assembler must be powered anyway, as well as an electric furnace) and their costs should be higher than that of a fast inserter as well (to say nothing of consuming tons of splitters).

It would be interesting if they had a small but constant drain even while inactive instead of per-item cost. I think that would help solidify a role as high throughput loading/unloading and filtering devices.

If they're capable of filtering, then they do need a power cost, no objection from me here. Though I'd rather see "dumb" loaders, filtering ones are optional as far as I'm concerned.

Also I'd like to clarify that this is a suggestion to make loaders part of the base game (vanilla). They are not in the game now because, as far as I'm aware, the devs (and most people) feel that they would not be balanced.

Neither you nor I have any idea of what "most people" think. Loaders are being defended and criticized by a very small number of people on either side. Except loader proponents are much less active since they feel loaders aren't anything special, and adding them to the game even in their current condition won't matter much either way.

This is why a core part of my suggestion is that loaders consume lubricant (and power) in order to make them balanced, and therefore be a valid candidate to be included in vanilla.

Except of course it won't make them balanced, lubricant cost will make them useless.

There's no other item in the game which has lubricant as as running cost. As in: a constant lubricant sink, not part of recipe or power generation cost. This is an absolutely new unprecedented requirement, and I really want to know why you feel loaders are so ridiculously overpowered that they need to be crippled that much.

Have you actually played a regular Factorio game with loaders? Can you post setups that would demonstrate how they're OP? Can you actually formulate your criteria for identification of OP items?

@Lav, please stop derailing this thread. Even if some of your points are valid, the fact is that they're not in the game, so if you think they're not overpowered now then please make a separate thread asking for them to be added to vanilla unmodified and make your case for why there are already balanced there. Saying they're already balanced in this thread does not help anyone. Even IF we assume they are balanced now, then even so, having nerfed loaders in vanilla is better than having no loaders in vanilla.

I already made that thread yesterday. And suggestion threads were always open for discussion and criticism of the posted ideas. But if you don't want that, no problem.

[Engimage]

Loaders are not nearly overpowered. Electrical power usage should be added for sure. A high enought one.
But adding pipes to their already big size is just rediculous and will make them obsolette.

[thereaverofdarkness]

If an item is doing some jobs better than other items, it means that item has a role, not that it's OP. But your criteria will mark everything as OP until it is uniformly worse on all accounts, and thus not needed in the game.

No, I just feel that inserters are not underpowered in their currently existing role as storage loading unit.